It is critical path to demonstrate that it is possible to provide AT
LEAST ONE other value. If that is not done in the core the chance that
the policy mechanisms will allow a transition is small.
this strikes me as a pretty interesting bit of philosphy. it is not tied to
dkim work but rather suggests a requirement for all ietf work.
anytime a specification provides for extensibility it must demonstrates at
least
two uses of it, even if only one is needed for the initial system functionality.
1. One problem is that two is usually not enough to text the real extensibility
of a mechanism. Folklore says 3, but I suspect there is an entertaining bit of
philosophical discussion about testing that one might have.
2. If the community feels a compelling need for the alternative, the community
will automatically include it in the core set, independent of its serving as a
test of extensibility. If the community does not feel that compelling need,
then the extensibility test is not likely to get enough community activity to
conduct a real test of development, deployment and use.
So it strikes me that the argument in favor of testing the extensibility
mechanism has real merit, but is not likely to recruit enough community effort
on that merit, to provide meaningful data.
d/
---
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net