[ietf-dkim] Lean vs. Fat 'requirements'

[Steve Atkins]

On Aug 10, 2006, at 6:55 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:

>
>
> Michael Thomas wrote:
>>  so I erred on less controversy.
>
>
> Some of us believe, rather strongly, that this is a particularly  
> important
> "bias" to the development of the requirements list.  It occurs, to  
> me, however,
> that it might not be clear whether there is working group consensus  
> on it.
>
> I would be interested in seeing statements of preference for, or  
> against, having
> the requirements be minimalist, and include only those items for  
> which there is
> clear rough consensus to include.
>

For.

> If an item engenders real wg controversy, it is *not* included.

> Comments?

I would like to see DKIM deployed as soon as possible. Controversy,
overly complex requirements and meaningless chrome are some
of the things that are preventing that from happening.

(I also think that the same issues make it more likely that the final
spec will turn out, on reflection, to be flawed in production, and
that's even worse in terms of deployment.)

Cheers,
   Steve