Hi, Murray,
On 1/12/11 1:53 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Hi Rolf,
I think your concerns are reasonable. But I think the "marketing" of
DKIM can be managed and maintained as it has its own momentum now;
this may be true for the US, I'm not sure about other regions of the
world. The figures of https://fit.nokia.com/lars/meter/dkim.html show a
big gap between DKIM use in the US and regions like Europe and Asia.
Furthermore, a few big companies like Google, PayPal, Yahoo etc.,
contribute significantly to these figures, without them the adoption
still seems to be marginal. To reach a critical mass an awful lot of
(smaller) companies still need to join us.
But let's not overemphasize the 'marketing' aspect; it's just one of the
aspects that need to be taken into account when deciding about the
document split, among other aspects mentioned by you, by Jim and by others.
meanwhile, the idea of creating a new technology (say, something that
protects HTTP transactions) that looks 95% like DKIM but is called
something else seems to me to be a path that would introduce even more
confusion to the industry.
Probably yes. But I wonder how many messaging/transaction type protocols
will be real candidates to do something with DKIM/DOSETA? If there are
many of them, a document split is important. If there's only one other,
I'm not sure it is worth the hassle. A number of candidates has been
mentioned, but at the same time questions have been raised, how
realistic the need to use DKIM/DOSETA for some of them is (as SSL/TLS
connections might be sufficient).
An inventory of candidate protocols that really may profit from
something like DOSETA, may help to understand the need (or absence
thereof) to split the documents.
The concept of building a toolkit as a basis, to which you add a few
plugins to get DKIM or a few different ones to get something similar
for a different medium, is quite appealing.
From a technical point of view: yes, it is!
Thinking at strictly a marketing level, which is the thrust of your
remarks, would the answer to "What is DKIM?" and "What does DKIM do?"
really change all that much?
Probably not, although it depends on who you ask. Yet, I agree with a
few recent postings suggesting to first advance/publish RFC4871bis and
after that start thinking about this split.
/rolf
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html