It's fairly easy to demonstrate interoperability of protocols, but
usefulness is much more difficult. DKIM is an infrastructure protocol,
designed to provide a basis for other mechanisms, such as domain-based
reputation, to operate. Those other mechanisms are as yet nascent; how
does one judge usefulness at this point?
Indeed; I agree. But, as I've said before, I think this is relevant
for advancement from DS to (full) Standard, and not so much from PS to
DS (unless we're really quite sure that it's NOT useful, and so should
not waste any more time with it).
If this working group does continue, I'd suggest that updates to the
service overview (RFC 5585) and deployment/operations document also be
on the table. Those are the most appropriate places for the results of
operational experience to be described.
Agreed. Unless there's objection to this, I'll add a work item about
ongoing review and appropriate updating of those informational
documents.
To summarize, I support waiting at least a year, perhaps more, before
progressing the WG specifications. Whether that means that the WG shuts
down and restarts or just goes dormant is a question for the IETF
process wizards.
I think "dormant" will work, if this is the route we decide to take.
But I think we won't be completely dormant, anyway, if we're gathering
data and reviewing the informational documents, and perhaps updating
them.
Barry, as chair
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html