On 11Jan11, Eliot Lear allegedly wrote: > Barry, Dave, and others, > The innovation of DKIM is not any one of these things, but rather the > combination. The test question for me here, for instance, is whether we > can standardize the processing of the signature in DNS as separate from > how the signature is made.
Extending Eliot's point, does the split make the individual docs potentially beholden to multiple masters? The Chairs suggest "no", but won't the split encourage DOSETA participation (and possibly others) who necessarily have different perspectives and goals? I also agree with the comment that DKIM probably had an easier time getting to this stage because it focuses solely on email. Our assurances that this was *just* for a particular security application with fairly modest goals rings a little hollow if we are now saying that DKIM is to become a general framework. Do folk think we have enough deployment experience to say that those assurances are obsolete? >From a personal perspective, getting closure on DKIM is tantalizingly close. Those with WG-fatigue probably feel that this proposal risks moving that achievement further into the future with no appreciable gain to DKIM. Perhaps that's a selfish POV, but the doc split does have a whiff of second-system syndrome which worries me when we're still applying the finishing touches to the first system. Mark. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
