[ietf-dkim] Does nobody or everybody want SSP?

[Patrick Peterson]

Similar to my recommendations on avoiding crystal ball arguments in
designing SSP, I would like to encourage us to avoid arguing about SSP
market demand. Again this thread from Dave and Arvel is a great
illustration.

I think lots and lots of folks want strict/deny. (Of course I count
myself among them so how's that for bias!)

Dave and others think there is a small, non-Internet scale bunch that
want it.

There is no proof that Arvel and I am right. But I do think there are
enough people making this argument that there is a credible, if
unproven, need. I think we should err on meeting this possible need
rather than disregarding this possible need.

pat

> > Contrast this with the view that this feature is quite 
> useful among a 
> > small, cooperative collection of services that have agreed 
> to use it.
> > 
> > While this is not Internet scale -- by which I mean broad 
> adoption with 
> > massive breadth of use and no prior arrangement among the 
> users -- it is 
> > a perfectly credible capability, albeit one that needs to 
> be treated as 
> > a specialized facility, rather than a general one.
> 
> I hope that I have completely misunderstood.
> 
> The notion that we should embrace a plurality of closed, specialized, 
> and proprietary approaches to what should be an open industry 
> standard 
> freely available to all is antithetical to the IETF purpose (as I 
> understand that purpose) and is specifically contrary to what 
> we, as a 
> working group, are chartered to achieve.  Therefore, it is 
> out of step 
> both with the spirit and the scope of our chartered work and should 
> simply be discarded upon that basis.
> 
> Also, I can not stress this point enough: "specialized 
> facilities" (as 
> opposed to general ones) have a way of becoming entrenched 
> and remaining 
> specialized.  This is not healthy for the larger community.