But we certainly want the interface to be defined. ...
Given that PKIX is an IETF working group in the same security area I
think it is a difficult argument to make that there should be no defined
interface.
The current language of the charter does not specify an open-ended design
process. Rather, it specifies an effort to refine an existing specification.
These are different approaches that working groups can take. In the case of
DKIM, the basis for the working group is an existing specification that derives
from running code and deployed use. The charter seeks to protect that investment
rather than call for an open-ended process.
1. The existing DKIM specification does not provide an "interface" to a
reputation system. Hence a working group effort to define one is entirely
open-ended. The fact that it has not been a focus of IETF discussions means
that there is little basis for assessing the nature of the output or, for that
matter, the likelihood of success.
2. To be productive, a working group needs to have careful focus. Working group
charters that carve off too large a range of work tend to spend their time on
philosophical debate, requirements statements, architecture specifications,
rather than producing useful format and protocol specifications. The issue is
not whether the larger range of issues is important; it always is. The issue
is
what a productive working group can reasonably be expected to do within a
reasonable time frame. Hence, successful IETF efforts usually take an
incremental approach at solving large and complicated problem-spaces. Once
they
solve one part of it, they can re-charter to attack another part.
3. The mere fact that PKIX specifications exist does not automatically encumber
other working groups to use them. Even were there a significant deployment of
PKIX on the global Internet, a working group would not automatically be
obligated to use them.
If there is a strong group constituency that disagrees with the above, and that
feels it imperative that the DKIM charter also contain milestones for
delivering
an "interface to a reputation service", then that needs to be discussed and
resolved quickly. To repeat: so far, no such constituency has been evident.
d/
---
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net