Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: making SSP useless in one short step

Hi all, me again, sorry.  Seems I'm missing all the fun in Vancouver. 
You don't know how much I wish I could be there.
> On day one, for all intents and purposes, no recipient server on the 
> Internet is going to make the query for this, and hence the mechanism is 
> "defeated".
That line of thinking must be rejected because it is historically true 
for all protocols in widespread use today, promotes inertia, and 
celebrates a pessimistic futility.  We must be careful not to think in 
these terms.
> At very best, it will be quite a few years (5-10 years seems typical, 
> for popular enhancements to email) before a large number of receiving 
> servers make the query, and there will remain a substantial percentage 
> of receivers failing to query essentially forever.
Best to get the 5-10 year timer started now then!  This sounds like a 
good argument for getting SSP out yesterday.  Regardless, it may not be 
an accurate assessment of time frames in this case as recent industry 
activity suggests.
> So the strict requirements of the strict mode have to be considered in 
> the face of massive non-adoption, pretty much forever.
Folks, "massive non-adoption, pretty much forever" is one individual's 
assessment.  That does not necessarily mean it is accurate.  But, assume 
for a moment that it is accurate.  Do we deny useful capability to all 
simply because some (or even most) decide they don't need it or want it? 
 No, of course not.  So, no matter how you look at this argument, it is 
easily rejected.
> Contrast this with the view that this feature is quite useful among a 
> small, cooperative collection of services that have agreed to use it.
> While this is not Internet scale -- by which I mean broad adoption with 
> massive breadth of use and no prior arrangement among the users -- it is 
> a perfectly credible capability, albeit one that needs to be treated as 
> a specialized facility, rather than a general one.
I hope that I have completely misunderstood.

The notion that we should embrace a plurality of closed, specialized, 
and proprietary approaches to what should be an open industry standard 
freely available to all is antithetical to the IETF purpose (as I 
understand that purpose) and is specifically contrary to what we, as a 
working group, are chartered to achieve.  Therefore, it is out of step 
both with the spirit and the scope of our chartered work and should 
simply be discarded upon that basis.
Also, I can not stress this point enough: "specialized facilities" (as 
opposed to general ones) have a way of becoming entrenched and remaining 
specialized.  This is not healthy for the larger community.
Now, I am ready (and eager) to be corrected.

Arvel





_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html