Mark Delany wrote:
Or, is this mostly a matter of semantics with the end result being
pretty much the same SSP syntax, but a different set of semantics in
the specification? If so, can we work on the syntax and defer on the
semantics as a means of moving forward?
If it's agreeable to others, I'd like to suggest that as a way of
moving forward, we focus on the meta-issue of how we resolve this
difference rather than focusing on the details of the difference.
1. I suspect the syntax is the same, and certainly suspect we need not focus on
possible differences.
2. I think that the passive/active difference involves a superset/subset
relationship. That is, I think that the active begins with the statements made
in the passive mode, about the sender/signer, but extends them to tell the
evaluator how to use those statements.
3. If #2 is correct, then my question is why the extended semantics are
essential? What problems are created by not including them in the
specification? What substantial benefits are obtained by including them?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html