[ietf-dkim] Issue: implementation Report v02 - Removal of 1st vs 3rd party statistics

[Hector Santos]

Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

> The term "third-party" was removed because DKIM itself 
> doesn't say anything about a binding between "d=" and anything 
> else in the message.  That concept is first presented in ADSP.  
> Since the implementation report is only about DKIM itself, not 
> ADSP, discussing author vs. third party is actually irrelevant.


-1

It is extremely relevant.

Its an implementation data report about observed operations and
consistent per chapter itemized goals:

   2. Collect data on the deployment, interoperability, and
   effectiveness of the base DKIM protocol, with consideration
   toward updating the working group's informational documents.

   3. Collect data on the deployment, interoperability, and
   effectiveness of the Author Domain Signing Practices protocol
   (RFC 5617), and determine if/when it's ready to advance on the
   standards track. Update it at Proposed Standard, advance it to
   Draft Standard, deprecate it, or determine another disposition,
   as appropriate.

   4. Taking into account the data collected in (2) and (3), update
   the overview and deployment/operations documents. These are
   considered living documents, and should be updated periodically,
   as we have more real-world experience.

The empirical data is on par with #2, #3 and thus #4.   It provides 
the field testing and engineering insights and information people need 
to progress with DKIM in a better way without blinders.

I don't get you guys, doing this to push a standard.  If you think 
this is kolsher - its not.

-- 
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com