-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 12:37 PM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: [ietf-dkim] a bit of philosophy on working group productivity
andscope
Folks,
...
In the long run, we probably very much *can* produce something
more than the bare minimum. Something a lot more.
But first we need to do *anything at all* that is useful.
That means targeting the smallest bit of useful output that we can
agree to, and *later* building upon it.
As of today, there is no standardized transit-time message authentication
technique. If we can produce a standard that permits validating
ANY identity
with a signed message, we will have created a stable base for all sorts of
enhancements.
...
Perhaps, but a stable base for future enhancements that will actually have
some utility is not, I would think, something useful.
Unless the output of this putative group would at least enable a receiver to
reject a 'bad' message or have more confidence in a 'good' message there is
no incentive for either senders or receivers to deploy.
It would seem to me that there is a necessary tie between the identity being
signed, some e-mail identity that end uses actually see, and some type of
sender policy declaration that would allow receivers to have some idea how
to interpret the presence, absence, and validity of signatures. Unless we
can get to at least that, then I don't think we've accomplished anything
useful.
Scott Kitterman
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
<http://dkim.org>