On Aug 10, 2006, at 6:55 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
so I erred on less controversy.
Some of us believe, rather strongly, that this is a particularly
important
"bias" to the development of the requirements list. It occurs, to
me, however,
that it might not be clear whether there is working group consensus
on it.
I would be interested in seeing statements of preference for, or
against, having
the requirements be minimalist, and include only those items for
which there is
clear rough consensus to include.
For.
If an item engenders real wg controversy, it is *not* included.
Comments?
I would like to see DKIM deployed as soon as possible. Controversy,
overly complex requirements and meaningless chrome are some
of the things that are preventing that from happening.
(I also think that the same issues make it more likely that the final
spec will turn out, on reflection, to be flawed in production, and
that's even worse in terms of deployment.)
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html