[ietf-dkim] Output summary
mike at mtcc.com
Fri Apr 29 19:24:43 PDT 2011
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Thomas [mailto:mike at mtcc.com]
>> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 4:37 PM
>> To: Rolf E. Sonneveld
>> Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy; ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org
>> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Output summary
>> Indeed, the chickens have come to roost. This was ill-conceived at the
>> time of the errata, and it is ill-conceived here. It is yet another reason
>> why I believe that the protocol described in 4871bis only bears passing
>> resemblance to 4871 and interoperation will be purely coincidental.
> I don't agree. I don't know of any current implementations that would be hampered by what's being done here.
Current implementations are irrelevant. They will completely and utterly ignore what is in
4871bis, because they are done and work fine. The problem is whether we've introduced problems
which will cause new implementations to not interoperate with current implementations. Given
the huge number of changes, it's impossible to tell without getting real life data.
This wholesale rewrite of 4871 needs to cause the document to be recycled to PS so that we
can have evidence that we haven't broken something. There is far too small an audience to
vet the changes going on here, and few if any of them are writing code from it.
Going to DS isn't an invitation to change all of the things the few remaining interested
parties didn't like in PS. But that's what I see going on here.
More information about the ietf-dkim