Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 03:50:05PM -0800, Eric Rescorla allegedly wrote: > > Patrick Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Let's hammer out the technical specifications, make them the best they > > > can be and get this thing to market. Let's not discuss whether the > > > charter should allow divergence from DNS, let's discuss the best > > > solution and if DNS can be proven the wrong way to go, I'll gladly argue > > > for this change. Let's be technologists, not philosophers. > > > > 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. > > Patrick said "wrong".
I would note that Patrick also said "best". > Eric said "better". I believe this is the crux > of the issue. Yes, I agree. > The DKIM proponents are saying they want something close to the > current spec as they think it will work, they think it solves their > need and they think they can deploy it. I think it's fair to say that > most of the DKIM proponents have not come to this conclusion lightly. The relevant issue here isn't "close to the current spec" but rather "backward compatible with the current spec", which isn't the same thing at all. > The not-DKIM proponents want something better, for some value of > "better". More accurately, we want the charter not to foreclose the option of doing something better, on the grounds that it's incompatible. > What the not-DKIM proponents have failed to do is identify > who wants their "better" or who will deploy their "better". In other > words, why is it really "better"? Apart from esoterics of course. Well, speaking only for myself, the reason that I haven't done so is that that that's not the discussion we're having right now. We're still discussing the ground rules. And the reason we're having that discussion is that the DKIM proponents want a charter that essentially precludes making incompatible changes. Once that issue is settled, I'll be happy to have a technical discussion about what would or would not be better. -Ekr _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
