> I'm really having a hard time understanding why we're so intent on
> snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Mike's comment above got me thinking on this. Aren't we very close as a
WG to resolving all known issues with -base now without this split? If
so, why introduce such a change if there's no large faction amongst us
calling for it?
As an implementor, I agree with Mike that when and where possible, the
fewer documents, the better. I'm also a little worried that the DKIM
specification might become a library of cross-referencing documents all
of which depend upon the others which begs the question of why they
aren't/weren't in the same specification to begin with.
My own view is that if DNS is a mandatory mechanism, if 'simple' and
'relaxed' are manditory mechanisms, they ought to be included in the
-base spec so that an implementor has everything necessary in a single
source. Other mechanisms currently optional or to be determined in the
future should be specified elsewhere.
Naturally, I will go with the flow on this topic but I just wanted to
get my own view out in the open.
--
Arvel
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html