On 4/3/25 7:42 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
It would be good to see some good faith on the authors, especially on the first two items which are trivial to avoid gratuitous changes to DKIM. I doubt I'm the only one who feels that the authors have shown a fair amount of contempt for DKIM as it is currently stands, and if they won't back down from such trivial backward incompatible changes that bodes extremely bad for why we should adopt it, especially if they want to maintain editorial control.On 3 Apr 2025, at 16:56, Michael Thomas wrote: I'd feel more comfortable if a few changes were made: 1. change i= to be something else that doesn't collide with STD 76 2. change t= back to x=. there doesn't seem to be any difference beyond a different tag name. 3. Explain the anti-replay mechanism a lot more. I've read through both documents and still don't get it. It's hard to evaluate if it's even on the right track.As simply a matter of WG process: Note that even if we adopt the document as it is now, the above would equate to me as opening 3 issues in the issue tracker on the document that the WG would need to resolve and come to consensus on before the chairs could ever call consensus and forward the document to the IESG. Almost certainly the first two amount to simple PRs and, even if number 3 amounts to a real extensive amount of new or changed text to explain the mechanism, it needn't prevent adoption of the document. All that said, it's up to the group whether the document is sufficient for adoption; I just want to make sure that we don't conflate "needs (even serious) fixing" with "can't be adopted".
The third is more fundamental: I have had a very hard time understanding the proposed mechanisms and am very concerned that the lack of clarity is a fundamental flaw in the author's capability to provide the reasoning for how their mechanism works. For the most part, my impression is that "trust me" is what is being asked. I had the same problem with ARC for which I could never get straight answers to basic questions from the authors and that is very concerning. Since it seems to be the same crowd pushing this, that's troubling especially since this is proposed to be standards track and cops attitude as a replacement to DKIM.
So no, this isn't just an issues tracker thing. It's just as much about who controls editorial control as anything else and whether they are up to the task. You can't separate the two, unless the chairs provide clarity that those concerns will (and how) be addressed.
Mike
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
