Michael Deutschmann wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Douglas Otis wrote: >> DKIM should be viewed as a Work-In-Progress still missing a viable >> policy layer. > > So you at least agree ADSP needs reform or replacement.
The ADSP "poison pill" didn't do anyone nor DKIM any favors. It wasted an often lot of time for DKIM development. Even as we tried to make do with the it minimum offering, not even its author support it or wishes to "fix it" so whats the point? I'm no IETF administrative guru, but this sounds like a problem the IETF, WG Chairs, AD, needed to address long ago. The fact is people are interested and have been for a long time, and continues to do so. But when an idea, concept, etc lacks a champion, it really doesn't have a chance and quite frankly that was the intention all along, hence an IETF poison pill - break it enough to make sure there is controversy and conflict to create an IETF no consensus. Hey, I'm all for proving me wrong. Please do so. -- Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
