ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP requirements

2006-08-08 10:29:30

[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
Stephen Farrell wrote:

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
OK a new point, the SSP requirements need to be addressed to 
different
audiences:

1) Authors of software
2) Operators of software.

I don't recall seeing this mentioned before!


As soon as we allow items like the above onto the list, we 
automatically need to list large numbers of others, 
concerning deployment, administration, operations and use.  
None of these will have any meaningful benefit to the list, 
other than to make the list longer and to make the salient 
issues more obscure.

It's a question of viewpoint.

Operational requirements are not the same as architectural requirements. One 
drives the other but there are two different levels of abstraction.

Some people are talking at one level of abstraction, others are talking past 
them at another level of abstraction.

Operational requirements are probably best documented in the form of use cases 
and the architectural requirements deduced from them.

Most of the people generating posts on the list are talking about their 
personal operational issues and making the mistake of thinking everyone has the 
same situation. Leading to interminable disputes.

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

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