Keith Moore wrote:
DKIM as currently described in the I-Ds is a lot more broken than that,
but they're not listening either.
Eh - to be fair, your concerns wrt DKIM haven't been posted to that
list since roughly the Vancouver BoF at which you took an action to
propose some charter text you liked better ([1], action item #1).
Regarding the charter, I believe I did send suggestions for
improvements to DKIM chairs and to appropriate area directors, though
perhaps not to the DKIM mailing list.
While in Vancouver I also had several discussions with individual DKIM
proponents and document authors about the problems with DKIM, and made
suggestions for how to address them.
I tried to improve DKIM through back channels because the abusive
behavior of some DKIM proponents (in the BOFs and in private email)
convinced me that it wasn't likely that attention could be focused on
these technical issues in a large group setting. I also saw the DKIM
mailing list as a set of people who had largely already decided that
DKIM was "the solution" even if they didn't understand what the problem
was.
I also know that others have raised similar issues on the DKIM list
since then, and fairly recently. But the current documents don't
reflect any awareness of those issues or attempt to address
them. That's why I said "not listening".
Anyway the general point that getting people who've agreed to do
reviews, to actually do them, is another problem to add to your list
a tracking system for these would be an interesting tool.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf