mail-vet-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [mail-vet-discuss] Draft as of 9/4/2007

2007-09-05 13:49:15
Dave Crocker wrote:

By "just to make it available for wider commentary", do you mean submit it for standards status? I can't think of what else you might mean.
Yes, though not yet (partly because I don't feel it's quite ready yet,
partly because I don't know the process in its entirety yet).

I'm talking more about reaching consensus here, and then exposing it to
some of the communities you listed.  I've already pointed ietf-dkim at
it more than once, but I guess the next steps are MAAWG "technical" and
ietf-822.

a) Be able to demonstrate a broad base of direct support -- is there a reasonable extensive history of commentary and revision involving one or more open fora with an interesting range of active participants?
In here yes, but this community is somewhat limited in size.  That's why
I'm interested in exposing it to a wider audience.

b) Be able to demonstrate a reasonable degree of implementation experience and preferably also some use experience, if practical. That isn't on any formal process requirement, but it makes a world of difference when debating against the inevitable abstract theory "criticisms" that seem to come from assorted well-intentioned, bright, naive folk in positions of some leverage.
I think I've got this covered at least via the implementations I maintain.
It has had a thoroughly legitimate and productive development history. So it's not that I am actually worried about the quality of the work, or spec. It's that I think it needs at least one more iteration of review by a somewhat broader audience, to gain a critical mass of demonstrable support. (Unless I've missed that it's already been done, and gosh, that just never happens.)
This is what I'm hoping to do next.


_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>