[ietf-dkim] 1193 considered harmful

[Hector Santos]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc at dcrocker.net>
To: <ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] 1193 considered harmful


> 2) When we talk about compatibility, could we start using some sort of
notation,
> to make very clear what type and direction we have in mind.

Dave,

DKIM is not a standard.  It is a proposal in flux!

It is not widely adopted.   It is not an infrastructure.   It is not a
factor by any means that should suggest that  an on-going half-baked, and in
my view, somewhat harmful, proposal to be pushed down the networks throat.
I find it incredibly fascinating how anyone might believe everyone (THE
WORLD) will accept this protocol as is.   Didn't MARID mean anything?

> For example, I
> believe the over-the-wire concierns divide beteen::
>
>    a) pre-IETF DKIM -> post-IETF DKIM compatibility (pre2post)
>    b) post-IETF DKIM -> pre-IETF DKIM compatibility (post2pre)
>
> So far, we have preserved pre2post compatibility but do not have post2pre.

Why not use real acronyms? such as STD vs. NON-STD.  This tends to tell the
real story.   If both were standards, widely adopted ideas, then I believe
you would find more agreement.  But it is not  a standard, It isn't widely
adopted.

  - STD DKIM MUST support STD DKIM systems
  - STD DKIM MAY support NON-STD DKIM systems
  - NON-STD DKIM will only understand NON-STD DKIM systems.

But what I don't understand is:

  - NON-STD DKIM will NOT support STD DKIM systems.

   Why would Early Adopters of a non-standard proposal NOT
   upgrade to support  the standard proposal?

Really,  do you really believe we have such a large, widely adopted "DKIM
infrastructure" at this  point based on a NON-STD DKIM proposal in flux that
it would have a detrimental effect on the network once a better STD DKIM
emerges?

I don't think anyone can answer YES to that with a straight face.

--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com