Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] Introducing myself

[Stephen Farrell]

Charles,

Charles Lindsey wrote:
 > Yes, I might do that in due course, but we need to toss the idea
 > around here a little bit more first (as we seem to be doing).

Good. I think that that's the right approach (and has the nice
side-effect of being a good check on whether we've done the
pluggability stuff well in base).

If draft-lindsey-dkim-better-c14n were ready for discussion in
Prague or before that'd be about right, IMO.

> My concern is that people will tend not to implement stuff that is not 
> in the base standard. And any c14n has to be implemented at both ends in 
> order to be of any use.

I understand. However, in the case of xmlsig I think the 2nd c14n
spec (which was demonstrably more useful) basically won out even
though it was done about a year later.

So there is an existence proof that, where there's a real benefit,
then the market moves to use c14n that works.

And in this case, as was pointed out, and I think, agreed by you
above, yours is a late, though interesting, proposal, that needs some
more work, (e.g. in terms of security & performance analysis, field
testing etc.). That's a fairly strong argument for going with the
current proposal in base since that's already been through those
hoops.

Cheers,
S.