I’m swayed by this example... a naming convention like DKIM2 seems reasonable in this context.
From: Tobias Herkula <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 at 3:01 PM To: Dotzero <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [Ietf-dkim] Re: Change the name now. Now! I appreciate the concern, and I promise I’ll keep my blockchain-backed DKIM2 NFT pitch for another thread. That said, I’m sitting on a very large sack of examples where naming continuity was a strategic enabler, not a compromise of technical I appreciate the concern, and I promise I’ll keep my blockchain-backed DKIM2 NFT pitch for another thread. That said, I’m sitting on a very large sack of examples where naming continuity was a strategic enabler, not a compromise of technical integrity. But let’s keep it simple. Take Wi-Fi 4 through Wi-Fi 7. These names were layered after the underlying IEEE 802.11 amendments were already stable and technically defined. The naming didn’t alter the specs — it just made them understandable and adoptable at scale. Nobody argues that Wi-Fi 6 isn’t technically "802.11ax" or that it's a marketing betrayal of 802.11n. But everyone agrees it helped industry and consumers follow the evolution and move forward. This isn’t about memecoins or marketing hype. It’s about not pretending that technical work exists in a vacuum. If we want adoption, clarity and continuity help more than cold precision ever will. / Tobias Herkula Von: Dotzero <[email protected]> Datum: Dienstag, 3. Juni 2025 um 14:51 An: Tobias Herkula <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Betreff: Re: [Ietf-dkim] Re: Change the name now. Now! On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 5:20 PM Tobias Herkula <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Sure. Take the Porsche 911. Since 1967, there have been at least eight fundamentally different generations, from air-cooled to water-cooled engines, and from analog to digital systems, all under the same name. Every version introduced major changes, yet the continuity of the name helped preserve brand trust and accelerate acceptance. Yes, some purists argued "a water-cooled 911 isn’t a real 911," but that never slowed adoption. The name bridged the gap between legacy and innovation, making it easier for the ecosystem — customers, media, engineers — to follow the evolution. Same principle applies here. "DKIM2" gives us continuity without locking us into technical legacy. / Tobias Herkula A nameplate on a vehicle != a technical standard from a technical standards body. It concerns me that an emphasis on "marketing" is being placed ahead of the technical standard design and details. Perhaps we should start a discussion of incorporating blockchain and AI so as to really improve the marketability of the effort. An associated memecoin would be even better. There are many things Dave and I might disagree on but this is not one of those things. I wholeheartedly agree with Dave that a name change is appropriate and necessary. The sooner the better. Michael Hammer.
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
