On Monday 16 October 2006 10:21, Stephen Farrell wrote:
So I'd suggest that we leave this issue [2] open for now, and come
back to the topic when we've got a concrete protocol on which we
can base the discussion.
Does that sound ok for now?
If that's the best I can get, OK.
I was serious when I said that if we are going to have to cut and deploy a new
RR type for SSP we may as well stop now. By the time that happens the
internet ecosphere will have routed around the protocol.
From my perspective a new RR type is a showstopper problem. I'm not sure what
a more concrete proposal for a new RR type might do to change that.
However you want to handle it is fine though,
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html