Hi Doug,
At 18:43 26-04-2011, Douglas Otis wrote:
Not validating input creates a bigger mess when used in conjunction with
RFC5336bis. As such, it seems unfair for the DKIM WG operating within
the Security area to close and then hand a mess over to the Applications
area EAI WG.
I thought that the advancement of the specifications from Proposed to
Draft would not be too much of an effort as there are existing
implementations of RFC 4871. But then, this is the DKIM WG.
I don't see any issue between the Security Area and the Applications
Area. I don't recall DKIM being discussed in the EAI WG. I read
draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis during the last WGLC in October 2010 and
commented on the draft (
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2010q4/014696.html ).
IDNA and EAI are not the same. You are going to break stuff if you
want to DKIM support for RFC5336bis. It's up to the DKIM WG to see
whether it wants to do that or not.
What's unfair is expecting someone else, whether in this working
group or another working group, to doing the work. As a matter of
personal opinion, I see that Murray has been doing a lot of the
work. I might not agree with some of the changes he suggested but I
do not expect him to perform miracles.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html