On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 17:17:01 -0000, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 13, 2011 02:48:14 pm Barry Leiba wrote: >> ... And at some point between now and then, please make it clear >> where you stand on the question, so we can fairly judge consensus. > > > -1 on splitting now. Yes, I am inclined to agree. To make DOSETA a useful basis for expansion into kther areas is going to need much detailed discussion, which will surely delay advancing DKIM to Draft status. > > For two primary reasons: > > 1. While the proposed split doesn't affect the maturity of DKIM, the > maturity > of having got the split correct is a different matter. Until there are > multiple users of the split out DOSETA functionality, I think it's > premature > for it to be advancing along the standards track. Indeed. DOSETA, as it finally turns out might be a Good Thing, but it would have to be a Proposed Standard, so you couldn't base a Draft for DKIM on it. It might all happen later on but, in the meantime, I think the only way to reuse the DKIM design for some new Foobar protocol would be to write a Proposed Standard for Foobar which referenced the DKIM Draft Standard and which stated that specified parts of the DKIM draft were to be incorporated, but that others (e.g. the list of headers required to be signed, perhaps some of the tags and maybe the key management) were to be done differently. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: [email protected] Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
