> It's fairly easy to demonstrate interoperability of protocols, but > usefulness is much more difficult. DKIM is an infrastructure protocol, > designed to provide a basis for other mechanisms, such as domain-based > reputation, to operate. Those other mechanisms are as yet nascent; how > does one judge usefulness at this point?
Indeed; I agree. But, as I've said before, I think this is relevant for advancement from DS to (full) Standard, and not so much from PS to DS (unless we're really quite sure that it's NOT useful, and so should not waste any more time with it). > If this working group does continue, I'd suggest that updates to the > service overview (RFC 5585) and deployment/operations document also be > on the table. Those are the most appropriate places for the results of > operational experience to be described. Agreed. Unless there's objection to this, I'll add a work item about ongoing review and appropriate updating of those informational documents. > To summarize, I support waiting at least a year, perhaps more, before > progressing the WG specifications. Whether that means that the WG shuts > down and restarts or just goes dormant is a question for the IETF > process wizards. I think "dormant" will work, if this is the route we decide to take. But I think we won't be completely dormant, anyway, if we're gathering data and reviewing the informational documents, and perhaps updating them. Barry, as chair _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
