On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 1:14 PM John Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
> >I agree with your second point without conceding the first. We were > experimenting with different possibilities in a collaborative development > stage. This wasn't supposed to be a fixed final spec, > >ready to be "implemented correctly". The development stage is different > from coming along and implementing a static spec later. > > > >And I don't think this line of discussion is leading anywhere > productive. I continue to hold that the characterisation of that hackathon > in your draft is unfair. > > I agree with Bron. The whole point of the Hackathon is for people to > implement > draft specs to find out what works and what doesn't, and to find and if > time > permits fix gaps and mistakes in the drafts. Nobody expects the drafts to > be > perfect, or for implementations based on them to work on the first try. > (as a participant) +1. This matches the value we got from the original DKIM interoperability events almost 20 years ago now (ugh!), and reflects how the spec and implementations interacted during development. I believe there is nearly unanimous agreement that this was successful. I see no reason to avoid embracing that model here. -MSK
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
