Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] OT: DK credits

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 10:56:41 -0800

Actually, I think the biggest problem is that the credits are there in
the first line of the article.

The authorship of the protocol is not the most notable thing about that
particular protocol. If authorship was then it would probably indicate
that the protocol was either very new or not very interesting.

I have added credit sections to several of the IETF protocols where it
is relevant, except for the ones where I was a principle author of
course.

I would suggest that the proper place for that info is in a separate
section describing the authorship, influences and the connections to
prior work. Tracing the architectural influences on protocols is an
interesting topic in its own right and something that is not normally
something you would find in the specs themselves.

The first thing I want someone to find out about DKIM is that it is a
proposal for adding email signatures that differes from previous
proposals in the following important ways: it is designed for ubiquitous
deployment, signing keys are maintained at the domain name level and
published through the DNS, the specification has been deployed by some
of the largest email senders on the Internet including Yahoo, Gmail and
Bank of America, the specification is supported by a coalition that
includes virtually all the principle providers of email
products/services and security products/services.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Frank Ellermann
> Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 6:17 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ietf-dkim] OT: DK credits
> 
> Hi, I put the Wikipedia entry for "domainkeys" on my 
> watchlist, and edited some details like moving a link to 
> Dave's DKIM page to the first position in the "external 
> links" section.
> 
> Russ Nelson added Eric, John, and himself to the intro as the 
> main "domainkeys" developers, is that correct ?  All listed 
> in the credits section of Mark's draft, but are these three out of
> 26 listed in Mark's draft a good selection ?
> 
> Sorry, I've a "thing" with SEO spam, and somebody adding a 
> link to an article about himself triggers my alarm bells, if 
> the 'edit comment' only mentions adding Eric and John.  Of 
> course it's perfectly okay to do this if it's correct, but I 
> want to verify it:  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DomainKeys>
>             
>                        Bye, Frank
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
> http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:43:24 +0100

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

> the biggest problem is that the credits are there in the
> first line of the article.

Yes, I've forwarded this concern to the related "talk page":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:DomainKeys#Credit
The pointer to page 38 of Mark's draft should be 39 - sorry.

                       Bye, Frank