Hector Santos wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Farrell" <stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie>
To: <ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org>
Folks,
If there are other things Mike should be doing with reqs-01 that
haven't been said on the list, now is probably a good time to
raise them (in a new thread).
I'm taking your off list advice and posting this here:
[Offlist]
Hector wrote:
My only concern about all this is that the process has been hijacked
by those who believe a REPUTATION LAYER is the only solution to be
used with DKIM-BASE. I'm afraid the requirements will be written in a
way to water down any strong SSP consideration. Evidence of that is req
#10 and the provisional considerations that the authors themselves
don't believe in.
Stephen replied:
That is a valid concern.
The valid concern to which I refer, is your wish for a "strong SSP".
As I also intimated in that off-list message (and I wouldn't quote you
back to the list without asking first btw), I do not care what the
WG participants think of one another's motives. So in case anyone is
confused I in no sense agree with Hector's "hijacked" remark, and nor
do I think such remarks are useful in a list message. Not that Hector
is the only one who uses such purely pejorative terms of course.
(Sometimes this list reminds me of nothing more than a bad coaching
session with the under-12 footballers.)
Lastly, the text above is hardly informative in terms of what should
be in reqs-01 (that has not been stated already), so this appears to
be a content-free thread at the moment.
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html