John Levine wrote: > Another way to look at it is that k= is useless, but it's not harmful, > so it'd be more productive to argue about the warts that are both > useless and harmful.
To be a bit pedantic: While components of the specification that are openly acknowledged to be actively problematic obviously ought to take priority, it's not quite true to say that "useless" is not "harmful". Every piece of a specification carries costs. If a piece does not also carry benefits, then it is a net negative, and that's harmful. Implementation and debugging are expensive and they are opportunities for bugs. If these costs and risks are not balanced by any discernible (current) benefit, then the "harmless" piece adds to the risk of problems with the protocol. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
