On October 12, 2005 at 08:23, Ned Freed wrote:
How about something along these lines instead:
"The working group recognizes that a significant amount of
infrastructure and deployed software already compatible
with the input specifications currently exists. The working
group will therefore make every reasonable effort to refrain
from introducing incompatible change."
I like it.
This can open up a political can of worms.
On the contrary, the can, so to speak, is already there and it's wide open.
The only question is whether or not we attempt to deal with it in the charter.
I.e. Some parties may
continue to push the adoption of DKIM, as it is defined now, to
make it more difficult to make any changes despite any flaws DKIM
may have.
Sure, and if it can be shown that it is not reasonable to proceed with those
flaws, those pushing such an agenda will lose.
It is interesting that something like the above will be adopted when a
clear threat analysis has not been provided (although Jim's document
is a good start), debates raised about what the scope of DKIM should
be, and the existence of known problems with the draft specifications.
The problem is without a statement along these lines we stand a good chance
of reopening every settled issue again and again. I've seen way too many
WGs get caught in this particular trap not to want to and avoid it here.
Ned
P.S. I note in passing that I speak as someone with no deployed code or
installed base. My concern here is I want a DKIM specification to emerge
in a timely fashion.
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org