(mailsig list dropped off. we need to move dkim discussions to the dkim list.)
> DKIM violates basic software design principles. As noted, DKIM is a protocol specification, not a software design. The difference is important. In doing protocol design -- especially for the open Internet -- there is a challenge in structuring things for extensibility and structuring them for coherence, ease of understanding, and (therefore) ease of interoperability. John Levine's citation of failure examples is worth considering carefully. So it a review of IETF successes. > For example, computing a cryptographic hash of mail message data (including > canonicalization methods) in itself is a useful capability. Since DKIM has a number of parametric components, including canonicalization and signature algorithm choices, I do not understand what additional factoring you are concerned about. It sounds as if the main concern is about splitting things into separate documents, rather than changing the architecture or specification. The question of factoring into more, or fewer, documents is always a challenge. Resolving the charter and producing a threat analysis are our tasks right now. I do not see how our debating choices in the number of documents to produce will accomplish that. 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
