Stephen Farrell wrote:
Scott Kitterman wrote:
If advancing DKIM/ADSP along the standards heirarchy is all that's on the
table, I think it should wait.
Effective rollout of DKIM in large hetrgenous organizations is complex and
takes time. I think it's better to pause for a while and give broad
operational experience more of a chance to exercise what has just been
standardized.
When we last discussed this, and certainly at the Stockholm meeting,
there did seem to be consensus for moving 4871 along to DS. If other
folks want to wait they should speak up, but for now, I think we do
have WG consensus to do that.
I don't remember when we last discussed this, but of course consensus
"in the room" at Stockholm needs to be confirmed via the mailing list.
In any case, I generally agree with Scott -- pushing this along the
standards track seems to me to be premature given the number of use
cases that need to be considered in the case of DKIM.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html