On Jan 11, 2011, at 4:12 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: > 2. The mechanisms in DOSETA were designed for DKIM. If we are generalizing > along the lines that Dave has mentioned, I would prefer that DOSETA in > particular not advance to draft status, as it ought to be tested in at least > two separate applications for a time. Otherwise we run the risk of ossifying > something prematurely.
This is a good point. But also, speaking of ossification, seems like it'd be far more annoying in the long run to create DOSETA as something entirely parallel to DKIM, and have DKIM not reference it -- in other words, two nearly-identical parallel specifications. It's not an easy or obvious decision, and I appreciate that we're having a frank and friendly discussion about it. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
