On Friday 07 December 2007 14:06, Steve Atkins wrote: > On Dec 7, 2007, at 10:52 AM, Michael Thomas wrote: > > Steve Atkins wrote: > >> On Dec 7, 2007, at 10:17 AM, Michael Thomas wrote: > > > > It sure isn't obvious to me, and I'm afraid that I'm at the end > > of the road here as I can't figure out what set of axioms that > > either > > you or Dave are operating from for that not be true. From the looks > > of it, that set of axioms leads to "SSP == bad", so I again wonder > > why you're wasting your time, unless it is to prevent SSP from being > > published. > > I like DKIM. > > Publishing a bad (harmful or overly complex or with no actual benefit > or...) protocol tied closely to DKIM would be bad for DKIM > deployment.
DKIM has one property that I believe is very useful for some (not saying you, I don't know): It has no value without some type of add-on. It needs either something like SSP or a reputation service. SSP we could standardize (I think we know enough technically if we decide to do it), but standarizing anything about reputation is something we are a long way from. So it appears to me that some people want DKIM + proprietary add-on = profit. > So... I either want SSP to not be bad, or for it to not be published, > or (worst case) for it not to be widely deployed. If it's bad, I think the not widely deployed will take care of itself. > I'd prefer the former. If things continue as they are I'm likely to > get the latter, so if I wanted that, I could just step away from the > abuse now[1] and let y'all get on with it. > > I'd rather take yet another attempt at getting people to look at the > fundamental flaws in it, and see if they can be reduced. Previous > attempts to do that haven't worked, leading to the bad protocol we > have now, but I remain optimistic that at least some of the less verbose > folks in the WG are open to such concerns. Well we've been through this all at least twice. Once when we did the charter and once when we did the requirements documents. I don't see anything here other than reopening issues around which there was already WG consensus without any new information beyond I didn't like the result the first two times we did it. If some of my responses are terse or not perfectly formed semantically, I ask for your indulgence and please write it off to WG fatigue. Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
