...and implement what you think should work before making an issue of it in
IETF.
That's been my #1 lesson this year (I'm new to IETF). I originally was
actually worried about blowback by the community if a large entity like
ourselves and few other household names just went off and deployed something
with capabilities that overlap with proposals being floated in the IETF,
without participating in those debates or aligning with those proposals. But
what everyone has been telling me is that it would be better in fact to go and
deploy something before drafting the I-D and debating it here. This is the
main reason why I went quiet on these lists since the Barcelona MAAWG meeting
(until this week).
On Sep 14, 2010, at 3:35 PM, J.D. Falk wrote:
...but not for the reasons the anti-ADSP folks keep bringing up.
DKIM is failing because every discussion about actually /using/ DKIM
inevitably gets stuck in the same old argument about ADSP. Doesn't even
matter what the argument is about anymore; it stops all forward progress
every time. And we keep letting it happen -- actively participating, even,
including me.
Continuing to argue these same points over and over is disrespectful of our
colleagues both on and off this list, and of the IETF process.
So I'm going to stop, and I beg you all to join me.
Stop arguing, and start writing drafts. Let us discuss the drafts instead of
attacking each others' intractable positions for the Nth time. If you think
ADSP will bring about the end of all human communication, WRITE A DRAFT
EXPLAINING WHY. If you think something else, write that instead.
Yes, I know it requires more effort, but what we've been doing so far clearly
isn't working.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html