My own recollection is that the working group originally had policy ideas in
its charter, but as we went through the work it became evident that doing DKIM
policy was increasingly hard to get right without creating something unreliable
or even damaging to the current infrastructure. Thus, I think the separation
in scope became necessary as the base protocol developed and matured.
Unfortunately, there are a those who cling tenaciously to the original view and
scope, and thus assert that anything less than the original goal set means DKIM
is a failure. But, also unfortunately, no workable solution has yet to be
presented.
Nathaniel's statement is right on the money: DKIM, in its current form, is an
important development enabling some important new functionality. Rather than
harping on the cruft that was cut away from DKIM along its path, we should be
focusing on the new stuff, as that's what we really need, and that's what
stands the greatest chance of success going forward.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf