ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: t=y

2007-11-09 11:23:17


David Mayne wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:

Given that most protocols do not have a 'testing' flag -- and they manage
to move into production quite nicely -- a different question might be why
 such a flag is needed...

Hrm, let's see - the SMTP protocol has EXPN, VRFY, and, well RSET - meaning
I'm just kidding, reset the session and start over. POP3 has RSET too. What
about ping, and traceroute, in a more general sense ?

Skipping over the humor, for the moment, these underscore that one can add features, albeit as options, without needing a 'testing' bit. As for ping and traceroute, I don't understand. Traceroute isn't really a hack. It's a very creative re-application of an existing protocol mechanism.


In the earlier days of DK, one of the hurdles I had to convince our management it was a good idea to experiment with DK signing, was how would
receivers handle issues with our implementations,

And that's why I didn't say anything like "a test flag is a silly idea". It isn't a silly idea. It just turns out that for the Internet, there's not much history of needing the flag for functional purposes. And adding a long-term protocol feature for short-term, political expedience seems like rather poor engineering (on at least two counts.)


d/

ps. This sub-thread is academic. I'm not lobbying to change the protocol. Just re-issuing my query about whether anyone knows of such a feature being particularly helpful in any other Internet protocol.

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html