On 05/04/2011 07:08 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
The claim that rfc4871bis has the goal you claim is yours.
So you need to do the work of subtantiating it.
So far, as you acknowledge, your only reference is quite old, merely
informative, and not a specification. In contrast, rfc4871bis declares the
goal
of its specification and it's not the one you assert.
You've now had multiple people responding to this thread with various
explanations why it is off the mark.
We should be done.
This is a good example of why this effort has come off the rails.
Going from 4871 to DS should have been a fairly straightforward
effort considering the high degree of interoperability we achieved.
Instead of just removing a few unused features, we've seen a
wholesale rewrite when one was manifestly not needed. Worse,
is that when that history is mentioned it is either disregarded
or sneered at by the senior editor. That is a problem.
This entire process needs a reset, starting with the choice of
editors. We are so far afield of what RFC 4871 was that it's impossible
to understand the implications of the subtle changes that have been
introduced. RFC 4871 worked. It did not need anywhere close to this
level of "fixing".
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html