Stephen Farrell wrote: > Scott Kitterman wrote: > >> If advancing DKIM/ADSP along the standards heirarchy is all that's on the >> table, I think it should wait. >> >> Effective rollout of DKIM in large hetrgenous organizations is complex and >> takes time. I think it's better to pause for a while and give broad >> operational experience more of a chance to exercise what has just been >> standardized. >> > > When we last discussed this, and certainly at the Stockholm meeting, > there did seem to be consensus for moving 4871 along to DS. If other > folks want to wait they should speak up, but for now, I think we do > have WG consensus to do that. >
I don't remember when we last discussed this, but of course consensus "in the room" at Stockholm needs to be confirmed via the mailing list. In any case, I generally agree with Scott -- pushing this along the standards track seems to me to be premature given the number of use cases that need to be considered in the case of DKIM. -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
