On 9/11/13 6:15 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I also agree with this proposal. I don't have much to add over the text in
the formal request; it lays out the case based on my experience
implementing DKIM and ADSP in open source. I can also say that I have never
encountered an operation that actively uses it, including current and
previous employers.
It doesn't help that ADSP's author actively wanted to subvert it.
As far as I can tell, DMARC is warmed over ADSP with a different set of
participants
to claim credit for their original ideas.
Mike
-MSK
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Terry Zink
<tzink(_at_)exchange(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com
<mailto:tzink(_at_)exchange(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com>> wrote:
I agree with this proposal.
-- Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: apps-discuss-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
<mailto:apps-discuss-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
[mailto:apps-discuss-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
<mailto:apps-discuss-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>] On Behalf Of Dave
Crocker
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 4:52 PM
To: DKIM IETF WG; Apps Discuss
Subject: [apps-discuss] Fwd: Request to move RFC 5617 (ADSP) to Historic
Folks,
Barry has agreed to sponsor the enclosed status change.
He would like to see discussion formal request.
(If you've already responded to my /in/formal query earlier today on the
dmarc@ietf list, please now lodge any formal comments you wish to make
on either of the two lists here.
d/
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Request to move RFC 5617 (ADSP) to Historic
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 16:09:14 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net
<mailto:dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net>>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org
<mailto:barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org>>, Pete Resnick
<resnick(_at_)episteme-software(_dot_)com
<mailto:resnick(_at_)episteme-software(_dot_)com>>
Folks,
This is a formal request, to have DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM)
Author Domain Signing Practices (ADSP) (RFC 5617) moved to Historic status.
It has garnered almost no deployment and use, in the 4 years since its
advancement to IETF Proposed Standard.
In addition, newer work, DMARC, covers the same general email functional
area and already has garnered quite a bit of deployment and use. Hence
it will clarify things for the marketplace to remove standards status
from the apparently-competing, but actually-useless ADSP specification.
Today I sent a query to the MAAWG Technical committee and the IETF DMARC
mailing lists, to assess support for the status change. Within only a
few hours, I've already seen quite a few +1s, and no -1s.
Thanks.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net <http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
apps-discuss mailing list
apps-discuss(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <mailto:apps-discuss(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
_______________________________________________
apps-discuss mailing list
apps-discuss(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <mailto:apps-discuss(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html