ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] we don't know what SSP means

2006-09-10 07:51:27


John Levine wrote:
This lack of consensus on SSP semantics tells me that attempts to
standardize it are extremely premature.

There are clearly some proposed features where standardising would
probably be premature. However, I suspect there are also some core
features of SSP where we will achieve rough consensus for
standardising now. I at least won't be surprised if we end up
with SSP only specifying a very small set of practices but also
being extensible. (We'll need to discuss extensibility requirements
at some point btw.)

But, let's see what happens as we close out the work on ssp-reqs.

Speaking of which, Mike hopes to have a -01 out during the next
week and Barry and I would like the wg to go back to using the
issue tracker and jabber sessions to progress work on that. So,
once reqs-01 is out I'd ask that we make that easier by raising
issues in separate threads, etc. And lastly, please pencil in a
possible jabber session on Thursday, 21st sept. at 1600 here (in
Dublin), 1100 in New York and 0800 on the US west coast, and at
two week intervals thereafter until we get the SSP requirements
dusted. Feel free to comment on this plan to Bary and I offlist -
and we'll try to arrange the logistics etc. to suit as many as
possible.

Cheers,
Stephen.

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