Dave Crocker wrote:
My intent was to define criteria for selecting practises that we specify
and assert constraints based on potential impact. In other words, we
should specify features that are likely to get used and that are not
likely to hurt individual sites or overall Internet performance.
(These sound like obvious criteria, but my own view is that they have
not been considered much during the discussions so far.)
So:
Potential DKIM signers wish to assist receive-side message
evaluation systems by publishing information about the messages that
they originate and possibly sign. Criteria for working group selection
of practices to specify MUST include a strong indication that
receive-side processors have an interest in using the information and
a technical assessment that the publication and query activities will
not impose excessive burdens on clients, servers, or network nodes.
The capitalized MUST (apparently being used in the RFC 2119 sense) seems
a little strong here. This isn't a specification for a protocol, this
is an informational document which we are using to design a protocol.
I agree these are good goals, but trying to make the design criteria
that rigid risks making our design process inflexible.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html