[ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified Mail (dkim)
william at elan.net
Wed Dec 21 09:23:15 PST 2005
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> --On onsdag, desember 21, 2005 05:36:08 -0800 "william(at)elan.net"
> <william at elan.net> wrote:
>> I also think that if allowed to be presented alternatives to putting
>> public keys in DNS, those would technically be found superior and less
>> damaging to internet. Other aspects of proposal also had alternatives
>> that are superior, but by bypassing MASS and presenting DKIM in current
>> form with constraints on discussion, all that "mess" is avoided.
> My usual immediate response to anything that contains the phrase "allowed to
> be presented" is "where's the draft".
Yes, the drafts and proposals were published as part of MASS.
I have links to most of that at:
Yes, the DKIM group clearly purposely bypassed discussions as part of
MASS (i.e. ietf open forum) in order to do it in private and leave only
one authorization method (i.e. public keys in dns; it so happens that
public keys in dns is also core of the Yahoo's patent and other
authorization method do not have such IPR constraints).
And yes in case you don't know BoF chairs and AD did deny request to
present alternatives to DKIM when it was still called MASS BoF.
> MASS had its BOF and its mailing list, so I'm assuming that whoever
> participated in that discussion discovered the fact that they could publish
> an internet-draft for ANYTHING without prior approval, as long as it was
> done in their own name and not in the IETF's.
> So in this case, the drafts might actually be out there.
> If so - what's the draft names?
More information about the ietf-dkim