In <200572163730(_dot_)926105(_at_)bbprime> Dave Crocker
<dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> writes:
The current language of the charter does not specify an open-ended design
process. Rather, it specifies an effort to refine an existing specification.
By "existing", you mean "so newly created that only 2 of the 3 -00
I-Ds managed to make in before the IETF-63 cut-off date".
Really, the DKIM proposal is a design-by-committee protocol, with the
design done in private and now Dave appears to be trying to rubber
stamp that design. I think it is highly disingenuous to imply that
DKIM is somehow an existing, established standard.
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.
I'm all in favor of working code. I'm all in favor of actual data on
the safety and effectiveness of the methods that are being considered.
I'm also in favor of rough consensus.
From what I can tell, there isn't rough consensus that DKIM, as
currently specified, is what should be standardized on. I think the
discussions on the canonicalization methods alone makes it clear that
there is a lot of work that needs to be done on this very key area
either to justify the current designs, or to come up with better
designs.
I think that DKIM, as it stands, *is* viable. As such, the language
in the charter can rule out just about all discussions. I'm concerned
that the language in the charter will be used to start ruling out
anything that the private design committee doesn't like.
I like many things about DKIM. I think it is much improved upon
both DK and IIM. I think the general approach is sound and something
like the current DKIM will be very useful for email authentication.
I think there is rough consensus on this.
However, it appears to me that there are a bunch of areas that DKIM
could use a lot of work on and I like many of the features of
META-signatures that are absent in DKIM. I think DKIM can be improved
as much as the improvement from (DK,IIM) -> DKIM was.
-wayne