----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Atkins" <steve(_at_)blighty(_dot_)com>
To: "DKIM List" <ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Lean vs. Fat 'requirements'
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.
-1.
Although you can deploy DKIM-BASE today, speaking for myself, which my
customer have faith in, I can not in good conscious add DKIM-BASE into our
product line without securing signing Practices and Expectation behaviors.
(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.)
-1.
I prefer not to repeat the ills of the pasts, nor repeat this process in the
future. We are very close to achieving something that is probably not going
to happen again in our active careers.
SSP is rather very simple to code, not very complex at all.
But again, you are able to deploy DKIM-BASE today. It is pretty much
complete.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html