Barry Leiba wrote: >> 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
Right. The rules for Draft require that we demonstrate interoperability by at least two, independent implementations. That's all. We need to be careful that we not invent our own standards process, no matter how much better we might think it. As you note, efficacy (or more likely 'popularity') is the real key to Full Standard, but it's not relevant to Draft Standard. >> 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. +1 d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
