On Monday, August 01, 2011 02:50:27 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > My own recollection is that the working group originally had policy ideas > in its charter, but as we went through the work it became evident that > doing DKIM policy was increasingly hard to get right without creating > something unreliable or even damaging to the current infrastructure. > Thus, I think the separation in scope became necessary as the base > protocol developed and matured. > > Unfortunately, there are a those who cling tenaciously to the original view > and scope, and thus assert that anything less than the original goal set > means DKIM is a failure. But, also unfortunately, no workable solution > has yet to be presented. > > Nathaniel's statement is right on the money: DKIM, in its current form, is > an important development enabling some important new functionality. > Rather than harping on the cruft that was cut away from DKIM along its > path, we should be focusing on the new stuff, as that's what we really > need, and that's what stands the greatest chance of success going forward.
I agree. The one thing I don't agree with in his statement is the never part of "... criticize DKIM for not doing something it was never intended to do." It is what it is, for better or worse and we need to move forward, but I don't think historical revisionism is appropriate (DomainKeys, which is the antecedent to DKIM, had a policy component, so expecting that to have been included in DKIM is not at all unreasonable). We should move forward with what we have, but not forget how we got here. Scott K _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
