-1 Keep
On 3/2/07, Hallam-Baker, Phillip <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> wrote:
This is pretty much my observation.
Looking at it in the ternerary terms I suggested for 1368 I would say that the
responses were
ESSENTIAL : 0%
USEFUL: 30%
NOT NEEDED: 60%
OUT OF SCOPE: 10%
NOT NEEDED combines 'NOT USEFUL' and 'OTHER IMPLEMENTATIONS'.
I do want to have the option to return to this on a recharter though. I would
like to see us define a policy infrastructure that is capable of being the sole
authoritative source of policy for outbound SMTP messaging.
To do that I want to first prove proof of utility in the DKIM space then build
on that base.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
> [mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Stephen
Farrell
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 12:37 PM
> To: ietf-dkim
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no
>
>
> So far I've seen about two to one in favour of eliminating
> this requirement so I guess Mike should not include it in the
> next rev.
>
> Not that many opinions though (12, incl one offlist) so if a
> storm of people show up saying that's wrong it can go back in
> where we're making the changes after WGLC.
>
> Stephen.
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html