On 2/12/2018 12:40 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
Just for fun I sent in a new I-D of the dkim-conditional draft that
takes out version numbers and adds feature tags in a backward
compatible way.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-levine-dkim-conditional/
+1.
But just for fun? I wish you would believe more in your work. Take it
more serious. If you had done so with ADSP, while we might be at the
same position today with its replacement DMARC, we would at least
saved a number of IETF man-years as well. Same problem then today.
But perhaps the author still doesn't really believe in the policy
model, yet does these types of DKIM Policy proposals.
I rather work on this proposal (over ARC) because it directly
addresses the key principle DKIM POLICY problem regarding the lack of
a 3rd party resigning authorization mechanism with minimum code change
and expense. It offers a bigger bang for the buck leveraging years of
IETF DKIM Policy Model R already done. We just didn't have the
POLICY advocates back then as we do today. So perhaps this time it can
be different with some of the past policy advocates posting again.
But since we seem to have an curious aversion towards optimizing the
solution using a simple DNS lookup, i.e. DMARC+ATPS, the DKIM
conditional 3rd party authorization derivative would be the next best
thing.
This work should taken seriously with first the author believing in
his work.
Thanks
--
HLS
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
