Re: [Ietf-dkim] Proposals for tolerating mailing list modifications

[Michael Thomas <[e-mail]>]

On 8/5/23 9:05 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 2:46 PM Michael Thomas <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     Well, for starters ARC doesn't have broad deployment. But the
>     author doesn't say why ARC is needed or relevant. That is the
>     point here. *All* changes need to be justified including any
>     imported mechanisms. The less rat holes the better. Same with the
>     mailing list modification draft. Why is that even relevant?
>
>
> With respect to ARC: There's a difference between asking for 
> justification and demanding that the discussion be stopped before it 
> even starts.  One of those is not okay.

Ok, justify it. Even the author says ARC brings nothing to the table. 
That is not OK. Peddle the ARC agenda in a more appropriate venue.

>
> With respect to the MLM draft: Since this is the only IETF list that 
> covers DKIM specifically, that makes it a reasonable venue for raising 
> DKIM-related ideas that might exceed the charter.  I would agree that 
> this WG shouldn't take up any DKIM topics not related to the replay 
> problem, but I don't see an issue with announcing in this venue that 
> you have an idea and invite discussion off-list or in some other venue 
> for as long as this list is allocated to an active working group.
>
By all means, let's make this a cesspool of irrelevant junk. Especially 
for junk that clearly has no clue about the history of DKIM.

Mike