[ietf-dkim] Issue: implementation Report v02 - Removal of 1st vs 3rd party statistics
hsantos at isdg.net
Mon Oct 4 20:15:05 PDT 2010
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.
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,
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
More information about the ietf-dkim