J.D. Falk wrote: > On Jan 11, 2011, at 4:12 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > >> 2. The mechanisms in DOSETA were designed for DKIM. If we are generalizing >> along the lines that Dave has mentioned, I would prefer that DOSETA in >> particular not advance to draft status, as it ought to be tested in at least >> two separate applications for a time. Otherwise we run the risk of >> ossifying something prematurely. > > This is a good point. > > But also, speaking of ossification, seems like it'd be far more annoying in > the long run to create DOSETA as something entirely parallel to DKIM, and > have DKIM not reference it -- in other words, two nearly-identical parallel > specifications. > > It's not an easy or obvious decision, and I appreciate that we're having a > frank and friendly discussion about it.
There comes a time when it's best for all to just admit that the train has left the station. I may well have supported this 3 or 4 years ago even with my disinclination for stacks of specs. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
