[ietf-dkim] Whither 4871bis?
fenton at cisco.com
Mon May 4 20:31:45 PDT 2009
Barry Leiba wrote:
> So the questions are whether DKIM base, with the recent update, would
> be ready by then, and whether we care to do it. Mike and John, in a
> rare display of agreement, have both opined that "no one cares" about
> it. There is that thought: the IETF three-stage standards track is
> meaningless, and that once something becomes Proposed Standard that's
> good enough.
Having just reviewed yet another document referring to "recent activity
by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to create protocol
standards around SPF and DKIM", I am reminded how little the community
outside IETF grasps the difference between Informational, Experimental,
and Standards Track, never mind the differences between Proposed, Draft,
and Full Standard. So I agree that, largely, no one cares whether DKIM
is PS or DS.
I have been seeing significant uptake in DKIM adoption and am concerned
that, if we are seen to be making large changes to the specification,
we're likely to induce another round of waiting until we're "done" on
the part of implementers and adopters. Regardless of how we describe
the compatibility between -bis and 4871, it's all about the perception
if large changes are being made.
I'd like to see us fold in the errata and update, waiting if necessary
for the update to meet the age requirement, and take the resulting
document to DS. The main reason I advocate that we go to DS is that it
constrains the changes, and supports the perception that this is a small
change that will not upset current deployment and isn't worth delaying
deployment for. Being able to describe the change as "an IETF process
thing" can be reassuring to those who might otherwise be worried about
More information about the ietf-dkim