I take a offense to your blabbing which just puts people on the defensive.
The fact is, your are incorrect in your continue personalization. The
topic includes examples of problems where this RFC2119Bis enforcement
is being sort, which quite frankly, you have been very much been part
of that push. I do understand why you want everyone to upgrade their
software to meet your needs, but you seem to lack the understanding
that you just can't do it the way you want to, hence why there are
delays in your publication, and DKIM is still an accident waiting to
happen.
Ciao
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hector
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 5:56 PM
To: Michael StJohns
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: 2119bis
Good points, but the subtleties are too wide spread to generalize,
especially dealing with integrated protocols and now there are
boundary layers related issues.
For example:
DKIM MUST|SHOULD|MAY validate its input stream for illegal
multiple 8222.From fields because this has been shown to cause
a potential security exploit.
[...]
So this protracted (and, in my view, hijacked) sound-and-fury thread about concerns with interpretation of RFC2119 and the rough consensus process, and hints about an activist Area Director, is really just a platform to vent your frustration with a decision made in a working group where you were in the minority?
The issue to which you're referring closed months ago. After a long battle, some compromise text was reached that included some of what you advocated, which during IESG evaluation drew a DISCUSS and it was rolled back before being approved for publication. This is all recorded in the archives.
It really is time to move on.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf