----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
To: <ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] 1193 considered harmful
2) When we talk about compatibility, could we start using some sort of
notation,
to make very clear what type and direction we have in mind.
Dave,
DKIM is not a standard. It is a proposal in flux!
It is not widely adopted. It is not an infrastructure. It is not a
factor by any means that should suggest that an on-going half-baked, and in
my view, somewhat harmful, proposal to be pushed down the networks throat.
I find it incredibly fascinating how anyone might believe everyone (THE
WORLD) will accept this protocol as is. Didn't MARID mean anything?
For example, I
believe the over-the-wire concierns divide beteen::
a) pre-IETF DKIM -> post-IETF DKIM compatibility (pre2post)
b) post-IETF DKIM -> pre-IETF DKIM compatibility (post2pre)
So far, we have preserved pre2post compatibility but do not have post2pre.
Why not use real acronyms? such as STD vs. NON-STD. This tends to tell the
real story. If both were standards, widely adopted ideas, then I believe
you would find more agreement. But it is not a standard, It isn't widely
adopted.
- STD DKIM MUST support STD DKIM systems
- STD DKIM MAY support NON-STD DKIM systems
- NON-STD DKIM will only understand NON-STD DKIM systems.
But what I don't understand is:
- NON-STD DKIM will NOT support STD DKIM systems.
Why would Early Adopters of a non-standard proposal NOT
upgrade to support the standard proposal?
Really, do you really believe we have such a large, widely adopted "DKIM
infrastructure" at this point based on a NON-STD DKIM proposal in flux that
it would have a detrimental effect on the network once a better STD DKIM
emerges?
I don't think anyone can answer YES to that with a straight face.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html