ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: ssp-requirements-01 // Negative Commentary corrections

2006-09-22 16:30:57
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

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