On 2/22/2010 1:46 PM, Polk, William T. wrote:
Didn’t quite make Friday COB, but I just posted a revised discuss. I
hope this helps us reach resolution!
Tim,
Concerning the revision you have posted to your Discuss:
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-ietf-dkim-deployment/comment/109680/>
You now provide a narrowed list of items:
(1) the selection of header fields to be signed;
(2) key rollover times; and
(3) the number of bytes covered by l=.
While this does constrain things and you do indicate that you are not requiring
the items to be resolved in the document, we still need to understand what text
will satisfy your concerns.
A particular challenge here is the point raised in the previous responses to
your Discuss, namely that raising issues that are not settled is
counter-productive in operations-oriented documents. Please understand that
these items were considering during development of the document.
I am sure you would not want the added text to wind up causing more harm than
it
avoids, such as by causing potential adopters to defer adopting DKIM, waiting
for more guidance than we can currently provide? Sometimes "the least we can
do" is too much. This appears to be one of them.
Perhaps it would help if you considered the points raised in the previous two
responses, including the detailed response to Charlies's review?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html