[ietf-dkim] DKIM charter update proposal
sm at resistor.net
Sat Oct 24 23:40:16 PDT 2009
At 20:19 24-10-2009, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>Where I disagree is that we have a sufficient basis to declare it stable.
The interoperability issues have been addressed in the implementation
I use. There are still some quirks which are MTA related.
>It has not been very long at all since we rushed a new RFC out to clarify
>things. What's the basis for confidence that that was it?
If you do DS and you want changes later, I'll say that a recycle is
needed. I am not arguing for or against DS.
>It is my expectation that if there are any significant warts left in the
>basic protocol it will become apparent in large scale deployments where
>DKIM signature data is being used as an input to other processes (like ADSP
>or private reputation services). I don't see a lot of evidence that such
It's wide deployment and not large scale deployment that identify
warts. I do not have to write about assessment as that is out of
scope. :-) The choice is about where to direct the effort to move
DS is a good time to document warts. DS would mean that this WG is stable. :-)
At 16:17 23-10-2009, Jim Fenton wrote:
>To summarize, I support waiting at least a year, perhaps more, before
>progressing the WG specifications. Whether that means that the WG shuts
If it takes that long for the WG to be stable, so be it.
More information about the ietf-dkim