----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
That's helpful, but probably not enough.
We still need to understand why such specification is essential to the
specification and why we believe it will work.
Dave, in my opinion, every aspect has been discussed, debated, outlined,
chewed in and out, tattooed in the forms of WG discussions over the last
16-20 so months, with illustrations and I-D documents created, including the
following drafts:
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dkim/draft-ietf-dkim-base
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-allman-dkim-ssp-01.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dkim/draft-fenton-dkim-threats-02.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dkim/draft-santos-dkim-dsap-00.txt
All these documents touches base with policy issues with the DSAP draft
outlining the issues in more detail.
With all this wealth of information together, it should be ample material to
take a few moment of your time to better see the concerns and proposed needs
for policy, including strong policies. But clearly, applying various
terminologies and semantics out of the blue is not going help extract what
is being sought by you. Passive vs. Active?
And in my opinion, It will be fascinating to see how a technical
requirements
draft can be well written with enough insight by anyone who doesn't
understand, does not have faith nor believe in what he or she is creating.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html