Jim Fenton wrote:
Do you think Hector's table is a good start? Seems to me like
it might be.
I really like Hector's table, and the terminology he has introduced to
make it easier to talk about the SSP policies. I think we still need to
talk through the specifics of the table once we get chartered, as there
will be some disagreement over the content of specific cells. For
example, I'm not convinced of the utility of the "weak" policy. But
that's good stuff to address once we get chartered.
Absolutely. Just to sow a seed: it might be even better if there
were a variant that showed possible actions when 2 dkim-signing
domains involved somewhere, but I can see that being potentially
unwieldy in presentation terms. That's for later in any case.
However, as Hector says, "How a system reacts is implementation and
local policy based." I'm concerned that the specificity of the table
will lead people to think it's cast in stone. It's not. We need to be
careful about the way we frame it.
True. I think we want to present it as an existence proof that there
are a reasonable set of actions which can be followed but make it clear
that as you say there're other things that can be done which are just
as reasonable.
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org