On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 17:17:01 -0000, Scott Kitterman
<ietf-dkim(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Thursday, January 13, 2011 02:48:14 pm Barry Leiba wrote:
... And at some point between now and then, please make it clear
where you stand on the question, so we can fairly judge consensus.
-1 on splitting now.
Yes, I am inclined to agree. To make DOSETA a useful basis for expansion
into kther areas is going to need much detailed discussion, which will
surely delay advancing DKIM to Draft status.
For two primary reasons:
1. While the proposed split doesn't affect the maturity of DKIM, the
maturity
of having got the split correct is a different matter. Until there are
multiple users of the split out DOSETA functionality, I think it's
premature
for it to be advancing along the standards track.
Indeed. DOSETA, as it finally turns out might be a Good Thing, but it
would have to be a Proposed Standard, so you couldn't base a Draft for
DKIM on it.
It might all happen later on but, in the meantime, I think the only way to
reuse the DKIM design for some new Foobar protocol would be to write a
Proposed Standard for Foobar which referenced the DKIM Draft Standard and
which stated that specified parts of the DKIM draft were to be
incorporated, but that others (e.g. the list of headers required to be
signed, perhaps some of the tags and maybe the key management) were to be
done differently.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html