----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Farrell" <stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie>
To: "Damon" <deepvoice(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Cc: "DKIM List" <ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Requirement #8
Damon wrote:
8. The Protocol is not required to publish a Practice of any/all
unreleated third parties that MUST NOT sign on the domain
holder's behalf.
[INFORMATIVE NOTE: this is essentially saying that the
protocol doesn't have to concern itself with being a
blacklist repository.]
Spelling issue: unreleated = unrelated
also
This might be a semantics issue but, does this mean that, while it is
not required, it is still an option to be able to publish who MUST NOT
sign?
As I read it, it says that the (SSP) protocol MUST NOT have that
feature. Some other protocol might.
Small nit.
"The protocol is not required...."
to me, means it is optional. The informative note seems to connotate this
"doesn't have to concern itself" which mean I could if I wanted to.
Correct?
Maybe changing to:
"The protocols does not need.."
or just remove #8 altogether. Don't need to mention it,
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html