Mark Delany <MarkD+dkim(_at_)yahoo-inc(_dot_)com> writes:
On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 11:57:29AM -0700, Eric Rescorla allegedly wrote:
We seem to be suffering from trying to hit a moving target.
Hmm... Maybe, but I think my comments are in line with comments
I've made previously. It's possible that my comments don't
agree with Russ's, of course.
That's seems to be the genesis. Hence my comments to the ietf list
a couple of months ago. What would you have us do since this seems
to be a meta argument between you and our AD?
A meta-argument? Are you saying that you think that Russ would like
you NOT to do the analysis I suggested? I'd be quite surprised to hear
that.
So what? That an AD doesn't preclude your analysis doesn't give it any
positive value. It simply means that ADs are inclusive, as they should
be. It certainly doesn't make your analysis a pre-requisite of
anything, does it?
Of course not. But equally, it doesn't mean that it's a bad idea
to do it.
What you need to show is why your analysis warrants special merit. For
at least two reasons.
First off, every man and his dog has a perspective in this space, why
is your perspective so special compared to the 100s of others
participating here?
Second off, we've been given very specific instructions that maximize
WG formation and those instructions are orthogonal to your
analysis. Why should we focus on your analysis to the detriment of
energy expended on WG formation?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. The reason you
should consider these issues isn't that they're my opinion or that I
have some authority to make you do so, but rather that (IMHO) the
issues are worth considering. Since I explained the issues in a fair
amount of detail, I figure people can make their own assessment on
this point. Now, of course, you may have a different opinion about the
importance of these issues, but just asserting that you (even for
large values of you) disagree isn't much of an argument.
As a final note, your analysis seems very late in the day. We are no
more than a week or so away from the BOF, yet the derived I-Ds are
already on their second iteration and the whole premise was first
raised in IETF60 around a year and a half ago. To question
fundamentals now, seems unfairly late in the game.
Huh? I raised these issues at the first MASS BOF and again at the
DKIM BOF in Paris. It's hardly my fault that they've never been
addressed adequately. That said, I don't see what fair has to
do with it. Either DKIM will do something useful or it won't,
and that's independent of the time when the question of its usefulness
was raised.
-Ekr
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org