On 03/24/2010 01:10 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Thomas [mailto:mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:06 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: mail-vet-discuss(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [mail-vet-discuss] Proposed "header.b" tag for DKIM
signatures
I guess the first order questions I have are, who needs this and why?
I think the "why" is spelled out in the draft, but the "who" is partly my own
work (an open source DKIM project) and is partly an offshoot from a larger
issue that will probably need its own working group; however, this piece is
useful before that one gets finished (which could take quite a while).
(In fact, oddly enough, this was originally your idea from way back when,
Mike!)
Yeah, it seemed vaguely familiar. The reason I ask is because any IETF effort
is almost
by definition a big undertaking, so having a pressing and compelling need and a
largish
constituency are usually table stakes. I guess I wonder who that constituency
is here, and
whether it's really large enough to get over the ietf energy barrier.
I just read through the draft and I still don't see the "why" that I'm curious
about.
I understand the problem itself, but the why I'm asking about is more of "why is
this an actual problem faced by implementations". Ie, is this something that
causing
trouble out in the field? Part of this is my own ignorance about how people are
actually
using auth-res, I admit.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html