On 5/4/2011 9:47 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
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.
Creative premise. Your assertion is that folks outside the wg are not
monitoring it.
Given the continuing, intense attention to DKIM that is taking place at a
variety of vendues, such as MAAWG and some private industry groups, your
assertion does not match the experience a number of us have.
On 5/4/2011 10:29 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
It's because I didn't want to imply that those were the only two. It's
just what I found in my quick scan. But they were the advise about
ignoring signatures with sha1, and another saying you could ignore an l=
*tag*.
So apparently we've moved from a claim of normative changes to citation of
"advice", apparently with the claim that the advice is problematic. Perhaps I'm
not understanding, but highlighting security differences, such as opening a hole
with l= or a protection weakness by using an older algorithm is not unusual and
it's difficult to see what is wrong with reminding an receiver that their
acceptance of data are voluntary.
And that's what I found in 15 minutes.
Does this mean that 20 minutes work is too much to expect from someone making
basic criticisms of months of wg effort?
Once again: folks who participate seriously in an IETF working group and who
have substantive concerns have an obligation to provide the substance that
justifies the concern. They are generally also expected to put effort into
proposing the details of a solution.
Such is the nature of constructive participation. One can, of course, always
find creative excuses for not participating on that basis.
On 5/4/2011 10:29 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 05/04/2011 10:25 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
What were the two normative changes in informational notes that were
wrong in the half of the document you scanned?
It's because I didn't want to imply that those were the only two.
This is quite a remarkable premise for refusing to provide concrete substance.
I'm trying to imagine how a working group could ever make progress, were this
premise prevalent. Don't offer substance without providing a massive tome to
cover everything that qualifies it enough to avoid misunderstanding what hasn't
been said...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html