On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Hector Santos <hsantos@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
I don't believe this would be a fair assessment of industry wide support -- using only one API to measure. There are other APIs and proprietary systems who most likely are not part of the OpenDKIM group. There are commercial operations using DKIM and ADSP is part of it.
I would hope this is obvious, but I didn't claim my little survey was representative of the entire industry. It's at best a cross section of OpenDKIM's user base (which does include at least three of the largest operators, but by no means all of them). I made it clear how many replies I'd gotten.
Applicability and Impact reports *should* to be done before pulling the rug from under the non-OpenDKIM market feet. In addition, it appears part of the request is to help move an alternative DMARC protocol forward. Why would the DMARC replacement do better? Why should commercial development for ADSP be stopped and removed from products, and now a new investment for DMARC be done? Would this resolve the apparent interop problem with the specific Mailing List Software who refuse to support a DKIM security protocol?
The ADSP impact reports that are part of RFC6377, the writeup for this action, and elsewhere already exist and are not specific to one implementation.
I don't think there's any particular DMARC-specific agenda here, but it is indeed obvious that (a) they overlap in a few ways, and (b) DMARC has not yet been accepted as IETF work but already has more deployment and support momentum than ADSP ever enjoyed.
More importantly, why should any small operator and participant of the IETF continue to support IETF projects if their support is ignored and projects will be ended without their input or even explaining why it should be ended? That doesn't play well for the IETF Diversity Improvement Program.
I think it's rather premature to claim anyone's input has been ignored when the solicitation for comment is still open.
-MSK