On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 03:50:05PM -0800, Eric Rescorla allegedly wrote:
Patrick Peterson <ppeterson(_at_)ironport(_dot_)com> wrote:
Let's hammer out the technical specifications, make them the best they
can be and get this thing to market. Let's not discuss whether the
charter should allow divergence from DNS, let's discuss the best
solution and if DNS can be proven the wrong way to go, I'll gladly argue
for this change. Let's be technologists, not philosophers.
But the problem is that the currently proposed charter, would, IMO,
preclude the adoption of something that was a better way to go if it
couldn't be demonstrated that that change was necessary for the success
of DKIM. That's why discussing that charter language is prior
the discussion of specific technical changes.
Patrick said "wrong". Eric said "better". I believe this is the crux
of the issue.
The DKIM proponents are saying they want something close to the
current spec as they think it will work, they think it solves their
need and they think they can deploy it. I think it's fair to say that
most of the DKIM proponents have not come to this conclusion lightly.
The not-DKIM proponents want something better, for some value of
"better". What the not-DKIM proponents have failed to do is identify
who wants their "better" or who will deploy their "better". In other
words, why is it really "better"? Apart from esoterics of course.
Three approaches to challenging the DKIM proponents are to a) question
their competence b) question their diligence in arriving at their
proposal c) convince them that "better" will improve their
market-share.
If I can be presumptuous Eric, I believe you're targeting c). If so,
can you elaborate?
Mark.
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org