At 20:19 24-10-2009, Scott Kitterman wrote: >Where I disagree is that we have a sufficient basis to declare it stable.
The interoperability issues have been addressed in the implementation I use. There are still some quirks which are MTA related. >It has not been very long at all since we rushed a new RFC out to clarify >things. What's the basis for confidence that that was it? If you do DS and you want changes later, I'll say that a recycle is needed. I am not arguing for or against DS. >It is my expectation that if there are any significant warts left in the >basic protocol it will become apparent in large scale deployments where >DKIM signature data is being used as an input to other processes (like ADSP >or private reputation services). I don't see a lot of evidence that such It's wide deployment and not large scale deployment that identify warts. I do not have to write about assessment as that is out of scope. :-) The choice is about where to direct the effort to move DKIM forward. DS is a good time to document warts. DS would mean that this WG is stable. :-) At 16:17 23-10-2009, Jim Fenton wrote: >To summarize, I support waiting at least a year, perhaps more, before >progressing the WG specifications. Whether that means that the WG shuts If it takes that long for the WG to be stable, so be it. Regards, -sm _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
