Re: [ietf-dkim] Montreal agenda, other than base

On Jun 16, 2006, at 3:08 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

> 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.

Defining a DKIM specific RR type should not prevent deployment.   
Defining the DKIM specific RR within the base draft means a new DKIM  
version is not required to enable its use.  If there are issues  
handling a DKIM specific RR, this is a problem independent of DKIM.   
A new RR issue, if there are any, may delay exclusive reliance upon  
the DKIM specific RR.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html