[ietf-dkim] Re: Issue 1382

[Michael Thomas]

First off, I apologize for an almost word-for-word repeating of myself in a
previous post -- it's fairly obvious that my mail reading habit is fifo 
based :)

My feeling is that deferring this argument until the design phase won't
likely hurt, while getting it wrong in requirements phase certainly 
will. If we
can just be patient until then, I think there will be plenty of opportunity
to work this issue through. I personally agree that this is an important
issue, but I'm also very interested in real experience which will support
the various conjectures about how the discovery mechanism should work.

       Mike

Scott Kitterman wrote:

>I'd be satisfied if the requirements draft were to say:
>
>The protocol MUST NOT require use of a new DNS RR type.  The protocol MAY 
>allow for optional use of a new RR type.
>
>I understand others may not like that and so I guess we leave it open for now.
>
>Scott K
>
>On Tuesday 17 October 2006 16:11, Michael Thomas wrote:
>  
>
>> From the requirements standpoint, I'd just assume that we avoid this
>>topic. There are some pretty deep engineering and political tradeoffs and
>>absent actual proposals, it's really hard to imagine that a requirements
>>draft would
>>finesse this topic correctly.
>>
>>       Mike
>>
>>Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>On Monday 16 October 2006 10:21, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>So I'd suggest that we leave this issue [2] open for now, and come
>>>>back to the topic when we've got a concrete protocol on which we
>>>>can base the discussion.
>>>>
>>>>Does that sound ok for now?
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>If that's the best I can get, OK.
>>>
>>>I was serious when I said that if we are going to have to cut and deploy a
>>>new RR type for SSP we may as well stop now.  By the time that happens
>>>the internet ecosphere will have routed around the protocol.
>>>
>>>>From my perspective a new RR type is a showstopper problem.  I'm not sure
>>>      
>>>
>>>>what
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>a more concrete proposal for a new RR type might do to change that.
>>>
>>>However you want to handle it is fine though,
>>>
>>>Scott K
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
>>>http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
>>>      
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
>>http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
>>    
>>
>_______________________________________________
>NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
>http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
>  
>