This is not a thread about ssp. Its about staying on topic.
Douglas Otis wrote:
On Jan 4, 2006, at 7:47 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
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.
There are a fair number of claims being made in the threat draft
regarding SSP that are not justified.
And where that's the case, then we do have to address it. I guess
the best bet is to let Jim respond to your comments, which he's said
he'll do.
> These issues have been largely
ignored. There have been concerns raised regarding the secondary
effects of the authorization scheme that also have bee largely ignored.
To the extent that that gives rise to specific issues with the threats
draft, its on-topic. Much of the discussion is premature though since
we (hopefully) will be chartered to address policy issues later this
year.
(*) But I have to admit I suspect you of continually trying to drag all
conversations back to your main point, and am therefore very reluctant
to engage on generic statements like your last sentence above.
You also ought accept that making the same "not ssp" point in a
million ways doesn't make it a new point.
->
Much of the threat review is premised upon assumptions of protections
offered by the SSP mechanism.
I expect that that'd be disputed and think "much" is overstated at
least.
> What concern do you have regarding the
unfair treatment and disruptions the SSP mechanism permits.
Neat trick. I nearly fell for it:-)
I have no concerns about ssp that I'd state more than 100 times.
The point is that you should recognise that you've not convinced people
of your main point and therefore you really ought to stick to specific
issues where you may or may not convince us. The war is lost, but you
might win a battle or two as we go on.
> When
someone attempts to discuss the merits of these concerns, why introduce
malarkey about everyone already knowing.
"malarkey?" Sheesh!
I doubt a review of postings to this list would single me out that
way. And if you believe that people paying attention to this list
are enlightened by repetition then I suspect you're mistaken. My
guess is that they'll stop reading your posts, never mind spend
time considering what you're trying to say.
> What points are you willing
to concede? What points are not correct in your view?
See (*) above.
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org