Douglas Otis wrote:
On Sep 22, 2006, at 1:56 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
The intention here is not to validate each point of the positive and
negative commentary, but to bring the issues to the fore so that the
entire scenario and requirements it generates can be understood in
the context of what has gone on with the list. If I have transcribed
the negative commentary incorrectly, I'm open to fixing that, but
striking each point fundamentally misses the point of why it's in
the draft.
This transcribed commentary is one-sided and lacking a basis.
Whether supported by a few on list at the time, it is still wrong and
does not belong in the requirements document.
It's not one sided -- it's my attempt to summarize what a lot of voices
on the
list have said. As for lacking a basis or "wrong", that's true if the
only one who
gets a say as to what constitutes "basis" or "right" is you. Aside from
being unfair,
it's not the point of the draft either: the draft's intent is to
summarize what people
want, what people don't want, and whether the wants are feasible or
needed now
so that we can have a basis to decide what the subset of wants
(requirements) that
we will demand of the protocol.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html