Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
We are perfectly aware you never believed in policy, never really
acknowledge it, fought hard against its progress. I can respect that
position. But I am bit vex as to why you are questioning its existence
as an original and still current WG work item.
Where I come from, personal attacks don't support your
position; they degrade your credibility.
And with your personal animosity towards me, I'm sure you will repeat
this to negate concerns.
I don't view expressing a public recorded oppositional stance as an
attack.
The ongoing claims that the working group was guided by sinister
designs to benefit from some specific alternate market are simply absurd.
No one stated it was sinister. That blab always came from your
description whenever anyone dared to state the obviousness of the
conflict of interest in the WG.
1) I always stated both security and trust ideas are necessary and
should of been incorporated. I opposed eliminating author domain
semantics and security and especially opposed the rewrite and limiting
the protocol specification to exclusively only 3rd party TRUST Service
Engine integration out of the box,
2) I illustrated two examples of how unrestricted resigner creating
mail integration problems, effectively making it impossible for any
kind of policy to work reliably outside prearranged known communications.
As a DKIM implementor and one of those "sinister" capitalist creating
products that include allowing a business to create trust services as
well, the above has made it very difficult and I see little to no
payoff in DKIM future - as it currently written in its limited nature
to only trust and for writing software with no design considerations
for controlling and restricting resigning.
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf