Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eric Rescorla wrote: > > But the problem is that the currently proposed charter, would, IMO, > > preclude the adoption of something that was a better way to go if it > > couldn't be demonstrated that that change was necessary for the success > > of DKIM. That's why discussing that charter language is prior > > the discussion of specific technical changes. > > > That's the nice thing about objections without investment. > > They are so purely conceptual and, therefore are not burdened by any > obligation to provide substance. Not even the minor effort of > examples. > > In that light, it's not surprising that you failed to gain support > during the open DKIm BOF and online group discussions.
Well, Dave, I didn't raise this issue at all in Vancouver, and I saw support for it in Paris. As for the mailing list, I assume you're familiar with the word "self-selected". In any case, a number of people on the IETF list seem to agree with me. And since the standard is IETF consensus... -Ekr _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
