Keith Moore wrote:
Keith Moore wrote:
DKIM as currently described in the I-Ds is a lot more broken than that,
but they're not listening either.
Eh - to be fair, your concerns wrt DKIM haven't been posted to that
list since roughly the Vancouver BoF at which you took an action to
propose some charter text you liked better (, action item #1).
Regarding the charter, I believe I did send suggestions for
improvements to DKIM chairs and to appropriate area directors, though
perhaps not to the DKIM mailing list.
I don't recall that mail but maybe you didn't send it to both of
While in Vancouver I also had several discussions with individual DKIM
proponents and document authors about the problems with DKIM, and made
suggestions for how to address them.
I tried to improve DKIM through back channels because the abusive
behavior of some DKIM proponents (in the BOFs and in private email)
convinced me that it wasn't likely that attention could be focused on
these technical issues in a large group setting. I also saw the DKIM
mailing list as a set of people who had largely already decided that
DKIM was "the solution" even if they didn't understand what the problem
I can understand your approach in this case, since there was a bit
of rancour about, but I assume its not what'd be recommended as a
general approach in any case.
I also know that others have raised similar issues on the DKIM list
since then, and fairly recently. But the current documents don't
reflect any awareness of those issues or attempt to address
them. That's why I said "not listening".
I don't recall recent messages along those lines, and still disagree
that "not listening" is fair, but its ok that we disagree.
Anyway the general point that getting people who've agreed to do
reviews, to actually do them, is another problem to add to your list
a tracking system for these would be an interesting tool.
Hmm - a hall of fame/shame - not sure if I'd like that or not;-)
Ietf mailing list