On Wed, 2004-12-29 at 12:37, Matthew Elvey wrote:
On 12/20/2004 10:11 AM, Douglas Otis sent forth electrons to convey:
...
I find this extremely hard to digest. I don't think this meets the
guidelines at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt, which I think
are intended to make it readable.
How about something simpler, like this:
Client SMTP Policy (CSP) is a way for a domain to indicate what kinds of
mail it sends out. CSP extends CSV and depends on CSV for security and
to help define what mail the domain authorizes be sent in its name. It
can indicate, e.g. that all the mail it sends is from CSV-compliant
servers, or is digitally signed, or that it sends no mail at all.
I should have noted the error. This 'kitchen sink' draft was sent to
the wrong reflector. This draft was overloaded well beyond the initial
concept. I did this to provide an example of where things could evolve
for the consideration of splitting the draft to ensure stability of the
basic CSV functional portion. A liberal use of a red pencil by the
design team has reduced this change to being a single document that, as
previously suggested, only adds a definition for the Port field with a
note on the use of this field. I hope this 'real' revised draft can be
published shortly. It has largely been finalized and is pending review
by one of the authors.
I must apologize to all involved, as this draft does not reflect the
efforts of the design team. You may have also noticed there was no
submission to the IETF and I was hoping my notes made it clear this was
a work in progress. I think you will find the finalized revision to be
clear and concise.
-Doug