Douglas Otis wrote:
On Jul 12, 2006, at 3:18 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
I'm not sure that Dave Crocker and I are in full agreement, but it's
close enough
that it should make people worry. Even though I've been thinking
about SSP for
a long, long time (IIM had the same concepts), it's not entirely
clear to me that
we know what problems we're trying to solve or whether they're worth
solving.
As far as I can tell, there are only a couple that have some obvious
constituencies:
1) I sign everything, for some value of everything
2) I don't send email at all.
All of the others are rather debatable -- and have been often. What
would be good,
I think, is to actually have problem statement for each new need for
policy/practices
advertisement, who would use it, why they would use it etc. The
current draft, IMO,
has too much of a "if you build it they will come" flavor to it, and
most especially
with respect to the "third party" stuff which I don't sense there's
any real agreement
on what it mean, or what problem it actually solves. In fact, I'm
fairly certain as
current specified, the "-" solves nobody's problems.
The policy/name-path approach provides two advantages:
[]
This illustrates exactly what I think is wrong here: we have lots of
solutions
to undefined problems.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html