On 10/24/2009 11:40 PM, SM wrote:
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.
I think that Scott is talking about a much higher level of "interoperability".
Clearly the rfc we have now is highly interoperable at the nuts and bolts
software level. What I think that Scott is getting at is whether we have
an "stable" spec that meets the use cases that we actually intended
DKIM to work for (eg, for all the enterprise, and other uses).
I think that Scott's use of "stable" might be a bit idiosyncratic,
but his concern is valid. I guess I mostly agree: I'm not really
sure what the rush is to get to DS. It's almost like people are
sorry to see this insufferable list go dormant along with the
working group :)
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html