John Levine wrote:
Another way to look at it is that k= is useless, but it's not harmful,
so it'd be more productive to argue about the warts that are both
useless and harmful.
To be a bit pedantic:
While components of the specification that are openly acknowledged to be
actively problematic obviously ought to take priority, it's not quite true to
say that "useless" is not "harmful".
Every piece of a specification carries costs. If a piece does not also carry
benefits, then it is a net negative, and that's harmful.
Implementation and debugging are expensive and they are opportunities for bugs.
If these costs and risks are not balanced by any discernible (current)
benefit, then the "harmless" piece adds to the risk of problems with the
protocol.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html