Stephen Farrell wrote:
Mark Delany wrote:
All indications on this list are that a good number of us think "yes",
so the "strong" policy position needs comprehensive coverage in your
requirements I-D.
Chair-ish quibble: I think the positions exposed on the list must of
course be covered in reqs-00, but I also think the more words that
are used to do that, the more disagreement we'll get. Put another way,
I hope no-one wants to see a reqs-00 that has near as many words as
have been posted to this list over the last couple of weeks.
So s/comprehensive/adequate/ above seems better. I really hope Mike's
draft is short and sweet, though that's a pretty tough challenge for
him,
In fact the actual policy itself better be able to be reduced to a single
comprehensible sound bite or I think it's likely that we haven't done
our job -- if we can't state it concisely, how can we expect people
to understand hearing it for the first time whether it's something
they can use or not?
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html