On 8/14/2020 7:12 AM, Dotzero wrote:
At that time there were also folks pushing for PGP, GPG, Personal Certificate and S/MIME as paths forward.
There was, by then, a long history of these failing to scale.
Even with that, it took a while for industry efforts to gain some sense of clarity. Notice that the general path forward was basically domain based and not individual user/client based.
SPF and DomainKey were informal, spontaneous, private efforts. They established their viability long before reaching a standards venue. So there was no 'policy' 'decision' to make this approach.
There was a debate within the DKIM effort regarding i= vs d= to the extent that at one industry event people were walking around with little stickers on their badges to indicate which they supported. I believe that was courtesy of Dave Crocker.
This was a follow-on issue after DKIM was initially published. We realized that the spec said that DKIM's goal was to provide an identifier, but then it didn't specify which one to use, the one in the i= parameter or the one in the d=. (Note that neither of these was requirement to correlate with any other identifier in the message.
The IETF working group debate about this was intense and was not converging on a choice. One of the early arrivals to the meeting walked through the hotel's entrance, saw me, and said "d= or i=?" and I realized we could have some fun both promoting the issue at this industry trade event, and possibly get some constructive discussion. The meeting staff were helpful in provide sticky dots to use.
d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
