Hi Doug,
Douglas Otis wrote:
On Jan 3, 2006, at 11:39 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
On Jan 2, 2006, at 11:16 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
dangerous open-ended policies as seen with SPF. (Very bad.)
Define "open-ended":
Aaaaargh! Please don't!
This was related to comments suggesting removal of SSP draft from the
charter. What problem is created in providing a definition of
terminology?
Ok then: define "define", but just not here:-)
Seriously, there will be a time when the group should be focusing on
the policy stuff, but its just not yet. For now we ought be focusing
on the threats draft.
You also ought accept that making the same "not ssp" point in a million
ways doesn't make it a new point. We all know that you don't like
ssp. There's no need to tell us again. I say this on the basis that
the charter text that Russ has now, is what'll get approved or not.
I just don't see it changing again in the way you'd like.
But, when its time to focus on what to do about policy (largely
after last call on the base draft), then many of the points you
raise will be on-topic and won't be distracting the group from
its main goal.
Why not read and comment on the threats draft instead? You'll feel
much better, really.
I _did_ respond to the threat draft,
I realise and appreciate that. The comment was more directed to the
rest of the folks discussing this with you over and over.
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org