> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John > R Levine > Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 8:59 AM > To: ARF mailing list > Subject: Re: [marf] draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting feedback > > I presume the motivation for this is that you have a few people who want to > use > it to debug DKIM failures. That's perfectly reasonable, but if people already > know each other, they can use private agreements with no need to standardize > anything.
That is indeed the prime motivation. It also has helped to have this sort of information around so that future implementations can add similar debugging features, as this expedites the exchange of exactly the kind of data that's needed to find problems. So you're right that the target population is small, but the need to interoperate properly in that context out of the starting gate is pretty valuable. But, admittedly, there's not much harm to getting it wrong, or indeed not doing it at all. > This strikes me as a poor thing to standardize for a variety of reasons. One > is > that the number of people debugging a protocol is less by many orders of > magnitude than the number who are just using it, and to the users, debugging > features are just cruft. Would it perhaps be better to make it Informational rather than Standards Track? It's been in use (though with the aforementioned small audience) for several years now, so it at least seems useful to write it down. > Also, to some extent this is an invitation to > mailbomb anyone who uses it, True, but that could also be argued about email addresses in SOA records, RFC2142 reporting addresses, etc. I think that ship has sailed. -MSK _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
