ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Documenting *why* the horse is dead

2008-06-17 18:36:12
On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 14:21 -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

I don't care what the "don't" reasons are anymore.  I'm saying we
have 
to document them so that implementors understand the reasons it was 
deliberately omitted, and currently (other than this mailing list 
archive) we don't.  I think that's a problem, because if we don't
then 
this will happen again, perhaps with the opposite result.

+1

(Apologies for not making any useful contributions lately; my analysis
of the argument to date is that solving everyone's problem, or even of
the "protect whole domain" problem is infeasible. I suspect that we're
at the point of noting how many devices are eventually going to have to
implement this and therefore adopt "choose the simplest useful
approach" (where "useful" means "of some value to at least small
majority of people, rather than to everybody") then clearly document
what options were discarded and why, so those who follow can get
themselves into the same mindset. This won't prevent errors, unwise
experiments and non-interoperability generally, but it will keep these
to a minimum.)

- Roland

-- 
  Roland Turner | Product Manager, RealMail | BoxSentry Pte Ltd
  3 Phillip Street, #13-03 Commerce Point, Singapore 048693
  Mob: +65 96700022 | Skype: roland.turner | Fax. +65 65365463
  roland(_dot_)turner(_at_)boxsentry(_dot_)com | www.boxsentry.com

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>