-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In message <bd300e8e-8148-4068-86ac-178829fbb...@mtcc.com>, Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> writes
> I personally think there should be some general divide and conquer > with some of the goals on the documents front where easier things > get done faster, harder ones slower, and if existing DKIM > deployments can take advantage of that, that would be great (I'm > thinking of the mailing list change annotations in particular). If > you're zeroing in on "where possible", fine that could be softened, > but the general idea of allowing existing DKIM deployments to take > advantage of some or all of the new work where it can seems like > Good Thing, to me. you appear to be proposing that the WG should proceed on DKIM2 whilst in parallel specifying complex changes to DKIM1. Who else do you think is going to put in the cycles to implement the latter ?? (and please remind me which software component you maintain). - -- richard Richard Clayton Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA/AwUBZ5bN8GHfC/FfW545EQL6UwCeNDqlae0eb2JVX0LsgNzL5mVjW8AAoJ/6 lnqMdi+RS/48Fq4waNm0qL0C =w+Px -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
