J.D. Falk wrote:
On Jan 11, 2011, at 4:12 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
2. The mechanisms in DOSETA were designed for DKIM. If we are generalizing
along the lines that Dave has mentioned, I would prefer that DOSETA in
particular not advance to draft status, as it ought to be tested in at least
two separate applications for a time. Otherwise we run the risk of
ossifying something prematurely.
This is a good point.
But also, speaking of ossification, seems like it'd be far more annoying in
the long run to create DOSETA as something entirely parallel to DKIM, and
have DKIM not reference it -- in other words, two nearly-identical parallel
specifications.
It's not an easy or obvious decision, and I appreciate that we're having a
frank and friendly discussion about it.
There comes a time when it's best for all to just admit that the train has left
the station.
I may well have supported this 3 or 4 years ago even with my disinclination for
stacks of specs.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html