On 05/04/2011 09:15 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Thomas [mailto:mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 9:03 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: Rolf E. Sonneveld; dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net;
ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Output summary - proposing ODID "Originating Domain
Identity"
My sense is that what Rolf is asking at its base is that the there is
a conflict between the two documents and it's not clear why they
exist, and which should be believed. If 4686 is inconsistent, then
we should make a case for why it's wrong and document that. It
may be process-wise "informational", but it served at the time as
a guiding document for the creation of 4871, and had working
group consensus at a time of extremely high scrutiny. We do not
have anywhere close to that level of scrutiny now, and as such
any changes made should be viewed with a very high level of
caution and scepticism.
My read is that Rolf is objecting to RFC4871bis on the grounds that it
conflicts with RFC4686. (He can and should correct me if I'm wrong.)
If his concerns would be satisfied by a change (perhaps an appendix?) that
simply acknowledges some evolution in thinking based on experience since
RFC4686 was published, I imagine that wouldn't meet with much resistance.
But if the point is to use RFC4686 to compel some change in something trying
to get to DS (or even PS), that's a non-starter.
"Compel" and "non-starter" are not helpful. Everything past publication of
4871 should be viewed in the light that fewer and fewer people were paying
attention. The set of people paying attention now are extremely few, and
many of them have self-interest in revisiting and/or changing the previous
consensus -- taking advantage of the much smaller set of participants. Not
that 4686 and 4871 are some sort of ideal residing in a platonic cave, but
they do have the virtue that they were widely reviewed and in the case of
4871, implemented. We risk screwing things up with every edit; the law
of unintended consequences isn't being given the respect it deserves.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html