Michael Deutschmann wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Douglas Otis wrote:
DKIM should be viewed as a Work-In-Progress still missing a viable
policy layer.
So you at least agree ADSP needs reform or replacement.
The ADSP "poison pill" didn't do anyone nor DKIM any favors. It
wasted an often lot of time for DKIM development. Even as we tried to
make do with the it minimum offering, not even its author support it
or wishes to "fix it" so whats the point?
I'm no IETF administrative guru, but this sounds like a problem the
IETF, WG Chairs, AD, needed to address long ago.
The fact is people are interested and have been for a long time, and
continues to do so. But when an idea, concept, etc lacks a champion,
it really doesn't have a chance and quite frankly that was the
intention all along, hence an IETF poison pill - break it enough to
make sure there is controversy and conflict to create an IETF no
consensus.
Hey, I'm all for proving me wrong. Please do so.
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html