On 4/14/2015 1:47 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
It's not "marketing" to decide to abandon a protocol that nobody will
actually use.
Why do you keep repeating this when you know it is not true? We used
it in real commercial products and it works as designed. It has scaled
for us.
Rather, it's a highly pragmatic engineering (and working
group) decision.
No, If it that was done, it would be a different story. It wasn't
done. ADSP was bitterly abandoned and left for dead, you had a major
conflict of interest with a reputation/trust modeling framework and
vendors in the market place, therefore any add-on (TPA, ATPS) for it
would not get serious traction at all. I always felt it will
eventually, hence adding the support or the basic DKIM+POLICY into the
framework.
You got a different situation with DMARC replacing ADSP.
It is a making a marketing decision when you exclude a perfectly
logical, technical and natural part of a protocol out because A) you
believe it impugns on resigner operations and B) make instantiated
statements that won't scale. That SHOULD NOT be your position within
the IETF to stop it from happening. You should support it because it
is technically sound. Don't use it yourself but promote not to use it
in others in a search for an alternative that is more complex, more
insecure and more changes and doesn't resolve the so called
"registration" problem,.
Using parato's principle, it will scale for most of the domains
because most domains are not Microsoft, Google, Aol or Yahoo. There
are more small domains than these relatively few handful. Using
parato's principle, most will not have a need to register thousands of
list domains and using parato's principle, most can handle even larger
big-data problems just fine.
--
HLS
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
