[ietf-dkim] Proposed changes to MLM draft
hsantos at isdg.net
Tue Aug 31 11:55:14 PDT 2010
MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
> So many choices, so little time.....
>> (2) Tear out everything having to do with making author signatures
>> list relaying, dropping all that text altogether, and instead pointing
>> people at S/MIME or PGP (John's proposal);
> -1 John's proposal is that we leave MLMs alone to do their thing, but in
> such a way that it is codified in the working group document. He has
> inserted himself into this process in a manner similar to what he did to
> ADSP. If we are seriously going to consider tearing out everything
> having to do with making author signatures survive list relaying then I
> think another option should be considered - The working group should
> drop any attempt to write a document specific to MLMs. Some will operate
> in a way compatible with DKIM and others will choose not to.
This whole IETF process reminds me of the Devil's Advocate quote for
God's greatest goof of all time:
"Look but don't touch, Touch but don't taste, Taste but don't swallow"
We allowed informational status documents to alter the draft
standards, allowing for out of scope goals to be injected, change the
scope of author domain messages, implicitly begin state to ignore
draft standards and then needed another informational status document
to make the corrections to the informational document and also draft
Talking about common sense engineering goofs!
The big elephant in the room is unrestricted resigners. The documents,
proposed standard and/or informational are in conflict with dealing
with that issue.
Hector Santos, CTO
More information about the ietf-dkim