Personally, I think each on-the-face-of-it-reasonable suggested
improvement has to be considered, but the more time passes and
the more the specifications are mature, the higher the bar is
raised. Since these specs. have been around a while and have
been implemented it seems reasonable to start this WG with a
higher bar than one where neither of those things are true.
I strongly disagree. Implementation of a draft specification is useful
to establish a proof-of-concept and perhaps (especially if there are
multiple independent implementations), to unconver potential
ambiguities in the draft specification. Implementation is not however
a good indicator of protocol soundness. This might have been
sufficient in ARPAnet days, but on the scale of today's Internet it is
necessary to perform extensive analysis and review - neither of which
have been done for DKIM.
So no, it's not appropriate to raise the bar for changes on the basis
of existing DKIM implementation. At most, the charter should specify
that new DKIM signatures be distinguishable from signatures made
according to the old DKIM specification.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf