On Friday 07 December 2007 14:06, Steve Atkins wrote:
On Dec 7, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Steve Atkins wrote:
On Dec 7, 2007, at 10:17 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
It sure isn't obvious to me, and I'm afraid that I'm at the end
of the road here as I can't figure out what set of axioms that
either
you or Dave are operating from for that not be true. From the looks
of it, that set of axioms leads to "SSP == bad", so I again wonder
why you're wasting your time, unless it is to prevent SSP from being
published.
I like DKIM.
Publishing a bad (harmful or overly complex or with no actual benefit
or...) protocol tied closely to DKIM would be bad for DKIM
deployment.
DKIM has one property that I believe is very useful for some (not saying you,
I don't know):
It has no value without some type of add-on. It needs either something like
SSP or a reputation service. SSP we could standardize (I think we know
enough technically if we decide to do it), but standarizing anything about
reputation is something we are a long way from. So it appears to me that
some people want DKIM + proprietary add-on = profit.
So... I either want SSP to not be bad, or for it to not be published,
or (worst case) for it not to be widely deployed.
If it's bad, I think the not widely deployed will take care of itself.
I'd prefer the former. If things continue as they are I'm likely to
get the latter, so if I wanted that, I could just step away from the
abuse now[1] and let y'all get on with it.
I'd rather take yet another attempt at getting people to look at the
fundamental flaws in it, and see if they can be reduced. Previous
attempts to do that haven't worked, leading to the bad protocol we
have now, but I remain optimistic that at least some of the less verbose
folks in the WG are open to such concerns.
Well we've been through this all at least twice. Once when we did the charter
and once when we did the requirements documents. I don't see anything here
other than reopening issues around which there was already WG consensus
without any new information beyond I didn't like the result the first two
times we did it.
If some of my responses are terse or not perfectly formed semantically, I ask
for your indulgence and please write it off to WG fatigue.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html