I would rather have a 6 month pushback from the IESG than a spec that is
dependent on the next release of Windows Server to become viable.
The first does not delay deployment in the slightest. As far as I am concerned
its damn the torpedoes.
The second will mean as an absolute minimum waiting for a BIND product cycle
and will require a much higher degree of support from ISPs and DNS Registrars.
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
I suggest that we explicitly solicit some discussion in the
meeting with both Security and DNS experts. We have made
some assumptions about what is likely to be acceptable to
each of those communities, yet I suspect we do not have much
feedback yet about their limits.
(I suspect we are in quite good shape, with respect to the
Security folks, but I find myself worried about the DNS constituency.)
So, for example, the DNS purists could well take exception to
the choice we have made for an initial TXT record, with a new
RR outside the critical path of -base.
Montreal could give us some valuable insight into the likely
problems we will or will not have in getting -base approved.
Alternatively, we could go through working group last call,
IETF last call, and IESG push-back. For any interesting
push-back, we are probably looking at delays in the range of
6 months. (That estimate is, of course, not merely
theoretical.)
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html