ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] a protocol needs a payload

2009-02-18 07:55:51
Eliot Lear:

The question one has to ask is broader than inputs and outputs.  Are 
each of the protocol elements described in the specification clear 
enough to be understood as to their meaning?  If they are not then that 
is what needs to be clarified.  Regardless, this debate about functional 
programming (which is really what this boils down to) is pointless, and 
you are ossifying a structure around a model that you needn't do.  As we 
have seen many times at the IETF, successful specifications are those in 
which the model can easily evolve over time based on circumstances.

This is precisely the case with DKIM, where the AD's and the IESG's 
intent was to walk slowly before we run.  The DKIM specification 
reflects that intent.

Your errata reflect a different intent.

If intelligent people cannot agree on what is the result of a
protocol, then there is a problem that needs to be fixed.  The
proposed errata address the problem. The alternative does not.

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