From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
why is is not sufficient to leave things with the simpler -- albeit
more passive -- stance that a sender talks about themselves but
refrains from telling the evaluator what to do with the information?
Yes, that is at odds with a classic model of protocol specification,
but we are juggling among constraints, here.
As one of the chairs pointed out, we are probably circling at this
stage and are consequentially not covering much new ground. (I quote
Dave solely because he encapsulates the differences succinctly).
It obvious that there are two relatively strong viewpoints: one the
passive that Dave describes and one the active that, amongst others, I
describe.
If we take the high ground and accept that both viewpoints are valid
then our job is no longer to argue our differences, rather it's to
work out how we accommodate those differences.
So how do we do that? Do we try and settle on one perspective? My
guess is that that seems unlikely.
Do we try and accommodate both? If so, how?
Or, is this mostly a matter of semantics with the end result being
pretty much the same SSP syntax, but a different set of semantics in
the specification? If so, can we work on the syntax and defer on the
semantics as a means of moving forward?
If it's agreeable to others, I'd like to suggest that as a way of
moving forward, we focus on the meta-issue of how we resolve this
difference rather than focusing on the details of the difference.
Mark.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html