On Aug 1, 2011, at 2:50 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
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.
Perhaps. But it's difficult to escape the impression that this is another
example of IETF failing to solve an important problem by focusing on a portion
of the problem that's easy to solve, and ruling the difficult part out of scope
for the time being. Repeat as needed; you can always partition the remaining
part of the problem again.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf