I fail to see how one can willing to write a document reluctantly,
write things he doesn't believe it, doesn't champion it and expect
this to be followed, standardized and adopted. Regardless in how this
is spinned, if John doesn't think ADSP is useful, there are not going
to be many to endorse its progress.
Of course, if John believe its broken, is he interested, able and
willing in fixing it? It appears that is what you implying.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com
Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 9 Mar 2009, at 22:47, SM <sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net> wrote:
At 14:17 09-03-2009, John Levine wrote:
I sign all my mail, but there's no way I can say that with ADSP. In
its current form, ADSP is broken and useless.
Given that one of the authors of draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-09 states that
ADSP is broken and useless, is it worth publishing it on the
Standards Track or even asking for publication?
Firstly, we're not authors in the sense of being personally
responsible for each word - the ability and willingness to write
something with which you disagree is laudable in many cases and in
this case. Secondly, I don't think anyone would accuse John of a
chronic tendency to understatement. So, no I don't believe his
statement has any such implication,
S.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html