Dave Crocker wrote: > My intent was to define criteria for selecting practises that we specify > and assert constraints based on potential impact. In other words, we > should specify features that are likely to get used and that are not > likely to hurt individual sites or overall Internet performance. > > (These sound like obvious criteria, but my own view is that they have > not been considered much during the discussions so far.) > > So: > > > Potential DKIM signers wish to assist receive-side message > evaluation systems by publishing information about the messages that > they originate and possibly sign. Criteria for working group selection > of practices to specify MUST include a strong indication that > receive-side processors have an interest in using the information and > a technical assessment that the publication and query activities will > not impose excessive burdens on clients, servers, or network nodes. The capitalized MUST (apparently being used in the RFC 2119 sense) seems a little strong here. This isn't a specification for a protocol, this is an informational document which we are using to design a protocol.
I agree these are good goals, but trying to make the design criteria that rigid risks making our design process inflexible. -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
