Jim Fenton wrote:
Stephen Farrell wrote:
I'm probably responsible for opening Pandora's box on this.
Well, you've done enough work on this to not get too beaten
up for that:-)
> In a
private conversation, I suggested to Murray that while an extension I-D
would be necessary to describe the addition of a reporting address to
DKIM key records, we might still have time to get this in SSP if there
was rough consensus to do so. The discussion has certainly raised
enough issues so that consensus is far from clear.
If the former, then I think we need to start by justifying why
the feature is needed but not mentioned in RFC 5016.
The short answer, for those who are in favor of adding it, is probably
"Sorry, we didn't think of it then".
Does a requirements document like 5016 describe ALL the requirements, or
a necessary subset?
Neither; its the "rough consensus" set (which may or may not be a
subset if there is in fact a larger set on which we might agree,
but that's an unknown).
It is ok to add stuff, but the barrier post-5016 is a lot higher
IMO,
Cheers,
S.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html