At 20:19 24-10-2009, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Where I disagree is that we have a sufficient basis to declare it stable.
The interoperability issues have been addressed in the implementation
I use. There are still some quirks which are MTA related.
It has not been very long at all since we rushed a new RFC out to clarify
things. What's the basis for confidence that that was it?
If you do DS and you want changes later, I'll say that a recycle is
needed. I am not arguing for or against DS.
It is my expectation that if there are any significant warts left in the
basic protocol it will become apparent in large scale deployments where
DKIM signature data is being used as an input to other processes (like ADSP
or private reputation services). I don't see a lot of evidence that such
It's wide deployment and not large scale deployment that identify
warts. I do not have to write about assessment as that is out of
scope. :-) The choice is about where to direct the effort to move
DKIM forward.
DS is a good time to document warts. DS would mean that this WG is stable. :-)
At 16:17 23-10-2009, Jim Fenton wrote:
To summarize, I support waiting at least a year, perhaps more, before
progressing the WG specifications. Whether that means that the WG shuts
If it takes that long for the WG to be stable, so be it.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html