This is at least the third posting from someone resorting to appeal to
authority as a reason for discounting alternatives.
I mean, gosh, smart people thought about this for months. So no one
else could possibly come up with better choices.
Not exactly conducive to healthy working group processes in the IETF.
d/
On 1/28/2025 6:28 AM, Richard Clayton wrote:
No it's meant to indicate that X people spent Y time looking at this
issue and concluded that DKIMbis was not a way forward -- since those X
were pretty skilled and Y was a fairly long time you might be led to
conclude that a DKIMbis was less likely to be the way forward than if
you had not been given that information ...
... you might also note that the X people are probably not going to
spend many cycles to develop and test a DKIMbis since they have already
concluded it's not going to be capable of solving the problems they
consider to be important to them -- and those problems include code
complexity, latency and energy budgets.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social
mast: @dcrocker@mastodon.social
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
