Please followup to DKIM
From: Eliot Lear [mailto:lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com]
If we argue for the value of DKIM as a component we have to
describe
the relationship of that component to the other components
we expect
to be used in conjunction with it.
I agree on this point as well. It is NOT that we should have
to standardize the other components at the same time, or that
the IETF might even be competent at standardizing some of
them. But I believe that if we explain at least a basic
theory of operation that has a reasonable chance of success
the chances of a working group in this area seem far better
than they otherwise would.
We appear to be largely in agreement. The point that I have been arguing
however is that where a protocol is ALREADY DEFINED the charter should
allow discussion of the relationship between DKIM and the existing work.
Some people are arguing against this position by conflating describing
the relationship to already existing work and developing new protocols.
I think that the first is important and necessary to do, the second is
important and necessary to avoid.
I suspect that the real reason for resistance here is that the people
resisting consider PKI complex and do not want to get involved in a
protracted discussion of its arcanae. This is not a bad objective but
the strategy adopted is counter-productive with respect of that
objective.
The best way to avoid getting pulled into an extended argument over
non-repudiation mechanisms etc is to describe the relationship to the
existing work that is designed to meet that need.
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim