(please move this thread to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've played with the recipient addresses to facilitate this. /d)
> While I am sure that Russ can speak for himself, I would like to just > add something I heard very clearly from him at the beginning at the BoF. > What he said, as I recall, was that the first technology in this space > that gets chartered will raise the bar for all others. The question for > the group was whether DKIM should be that technology, Thanks for mentioning this. I should have included this point in the summary, simply because it was such a focused statement. It also explains why the barrier to chartering is being made so high, even for the first effort in this arena. (A threat analysis would more typically be a first requirement AFTER chartering.) > Therefore, I interpret that as the threat analysis consisting of a crisp > problem statement and then some fairly detailed analysis of how DKIM > either solves the problem(s) or is a necessary component to solving the > problem(s). My strong feeling is that any text that requires DKIM to work with additional standardized components will cause this components to be required as part of the DKIM working group effort. This will bog the effort down. Hence we need crisp, clear, legitimate statements of benefit that accrue when using DKIM and requiring no additional, new, standardized components. > I would expect that a working group would be formed first if it is > demonstrated that the problem is important, second if it is shown that > the DKIM solution either solves the problem or can provide a necessary > component of solving the problem, third that there does not exist a > standard today that could reasonably be adapted to provide the same > function, and fourth that of the proposed solutions in this space, DKIM > is the best one to go forward (for some value of "best"). Good summary, except for the qualifications I keep stating about "component of" statements. > I would further expect that development of answers to these four would > occur on the newly created dkim list, but now I'm channeling Dave > Crocker and there could be a parity error in there somewhere (Dave can > speak for himself). You did a fine job. Dave indeed requests moving IETF-related DKIM discussions to the [email protected] mailing list. He also suspects it would be less confusing if there were no public dkim engineering discussions elsewhere... d/ --- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list [email protected] http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
