On 11Jan11, Eliot Lear allegedly wrote:
Barry, Dave, and others,
The innovation of DKIM is not any one of these things, but rather the
combination. The test question for me here, for instance, is whether we
can standardize the processing of the signature in DNS as separate from
how the signature is made.
Extending Eliot's point, does the split make the individual docs
potentially beholden to multiple masters? The Chairs suggest "no",
but won't the split encourage DOSETA participation (and possibly
others) who necessarily have different perspectives and goals?
I also agree with the comment that DKIM probably had an easier time
getting to this stage because it focuses solely on email. Our
assurances that this was *just* for a particular security application
with fairly modest goals rings a little hollow if we are now saying
that DKIM is to become a general framework. Do folk think we have
enough deployment experience to say that those assurances are
obsolete?
From a personal perspective, getting closure on DKIM is tantalizingly
close. Those with WG-fatigue probably feel that this proposal risks
moving that achievement further into the future with no appreciable
gain to DKIM. Perhaps that's a selfish POV, but the doc split does
have a whiff of second-system syndrome which worries me when we're
still applying the finishing touches to the first system.
Mark.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html