ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Suggested alternate algorithm specification language, for now

2006-02-22 17:58:55
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 03:52:09PM -0800, Ned Freed allegedly wrote:
The real question is why you're so opposed to making it a MUST. If in fact

Here's my guess. I don't think Arvel is opposed. As an implementor he
just wants to know what code to write.

As a pragmatist, I think Arvel is right, as an observer of wannabe RFC
police, I think Ned is right.

Personally, I'm a bit amazed at the minutia. Surely everyone accepts
that an interop core is essential and in IETF parlance that implies an
appropriate set of MUSTs or their logical equivalence.

My suspicion is that we have violent agreement.


Mark.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>