If you can show that publishing base will in no way cripple or weaken SSP
then I for one will get behind your plan. If you can't, I and others
won't. That is the debate here.
This was not fair of me to say because it is not possible to prove a
negative. My apologies Dave, and everyone.
What specifically I'm trying to get at is that by relaxing or removing the
language from base which currently requires SSP (specifically section 6.5)
this will render the implementation of the SSP spec an optional thing when
today it is a required expectation of all DKIM base implementations. If
DKIM is meant to address the problem of unauthorized domain use in an email
identity header then it seems counter-intuitive to make the only part of
DKIM that directly addresses that topic an optional exercise.
However, there is another way to look at this. The goal of the WG could be
to address both the problem of unauthorized domain use _and_ the problem of
the lack of an accountable identity in email. DKIM base addresses the
second issue while DKIM SSP addresses the first (and uses DKIM base to do
so). If we can charter a WG with the focus being on making a positive
contribution toward addressing both problems (however imperfectly) then
perhaps this isn't as bad a mistake as I thought it might be.
We can publish DKIM base with the clear understanding that it only addresses
the accountable domain goal of the WG. Then we can publish DKIM ssp with
the understanding that it addresses the unauthorized use issue.
I'm coming around to thinking this might be a viable way to proceed.
--
Arvel
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org