On Aug 1, 2011, at 2:50 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > My own recollection is that the working group originally had policy ideas in its charter, but as we went through the work it became evident that doing DKIM policy was increasingly hard to get right without creating something unreliable or even damaging to the current infrastructure. Thus, I think the separation in scope became necessary as the base protocol developed and matured. > > Unfortunately, there are a those who cling tenaciously to the original view and scope, and thus assert that anything less than the original goal set means DKIM is a failure. But, also unfortunately, no workable solution has yet to be presented. > > Nathaniel's statement is right on the money: DKIM, in its current form, is an important development enabling some important new functionality. Rather than harping on the cruft that was cut away from DKIM along its path, we should be focusing on the new stuff, as that's what we really need, and that's what stands the greatest chance of success going forward. Perhaps. But it's difficult to escape the impression that this is another example of IETF failing to solve an important problem by focusing on a portion of the problem that's easy to solve, and ruling the difficult part out of scope for the time being. Repeat as needed; you can always partition the remaining part of the problem again. Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf