Douglas Otis wrote:
On Aug 4, 2006, at 9:23 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 8:38 AM -0700 8/4/06, Douglas Otis wrote:
During a transition, it would be important to communicate what will
be offered and what has been deprecated. Then these options MUST be
available or the related signatures MUST be ignored.
The SSP document *cannot* change the way implementers of the -base
document process signatures. "MUST be ignored" changes the logic of
-base.
Interesting catch. This point was raised however during base, but ignored.
Sometimes: Raised != clearly described.
Always: Ignored != didn't achieve consensus.
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html