The reasons for saying that a different name from "DKIM2" should be
chosen later are pretty straightforward, such as encouraging focus on
the 'more important technical stuff' and not getting distracted.
Those reasons are wrong.
There is already vigorous industry marketing happening for "DKIM2" now.
It is the term everyone is using. Now.
If there is a goal of having a different name -- and there really does
need to be that goal, since the things being pursued are not DKIM --
then every day of delay is a day that works against the goal.
<Anec:
Circa 1970, I worked as a part-time operator at a large computer
center at UCLA. IBM 360/91. It had main memory modules that were
6' x 2' x 4'. Big guys with about 256KB per module. Huge, for the
day. And expensive.
IBM called a module Basic Operating Memory.
Until they got a call from the FBI.
The Feds were unhappy with the name because IBM would air freight
these around and it was disconcerting to the airport shipping staff
to have IBM call and asked whether their BOM (bomb) had arrived yet.
So IBM changed the name to Basic Storage Module.
The short-form reference to this was BOM.
Because that's what the reference had always been.
:dote>
Please.
Now.
Not later.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social
mast: @[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
