Michael Thomas wrote:
I think this touches on the important question about all of this: what are
we trying to accomplish right now? My feeling is that we want as quickly as
possible to fertilize the fields with as many DKIM signers as possible.
This is a very straightforward proposition and -base provides the necessary
blueprint on how to do that.
This is concisely stated. I think it gets to the core view that many folk
hold. And, yes, I disagree with it. But it's almost refreshing to disagree
with such a clearly stated view.
I tend towards viewing wide-spread adoption as difficult. Can't imagine where
that perspective comes from...
Successful adoption of brand new IETF work usually entails quite a bit of
post-standards marketing, as in "educating". Getting folks on the same page
about what to say is important and difficult.
The view that -base is sufficient presumes a) quite a high level of expertise,
I believe, and b) quite a high level of effort. Most managers and decisions
makers, out in the larger Internet, do not have either.
Consequently, none of the folk in this working group are representative of
that larger community. (Dare I note that even within the working group, there
is often disparity on basic point about DKIM, which -overview ought to be
useful in settling?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html