ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] RE: I think we can punt the hard stuff as out of scope.

2007-06-05 13:28:58

I have no objection to that.

S.

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
OK how about this as a plan

1) We do policy according to the view of scope currently being expressed by the 
chairs and myself.
2) You and I submit a four page ID that registers a NOMAIL policy for DKIM.
3) The group decides whether to accept the paragraph of text into the text of 
the main draft or not during the Draft phase.



-----Original Message-----
From: Hector Santos [mailto:hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com] Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 3:48 PM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: Michael Thomas; Scott Kitterman; ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] RE: I think we can punt the hard stuff as out of scope.

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

NOMAIL is out of scope, wildcards for signature policy are not.
Deja-vu. NOMAIL is not out of scope in SSP and you need to STOP saying it. The CONFUSING VOTE that was taking - I still don't now show what it meant but it was not what it would to be removed from SSP!

There are two deployment stories we need to be able to give,
> one that meets 95% of needs with legacy infrastructure support, > the second that meets 100% of needs with a minor incremental > change to the legacy infrastructure.

I don't see how SSP violates this principle.

The second of these provides a slot ready made
 > for NOMAIL, (and for STARTTLE, PGP and SMIME if you like).

Oy vey! So then it is not out of scope as you said.

I am meeting your set of requirements in full. I am just
 > not doing so in such a way that my proposal is out of scope,
 > that is all.

Well, I would like to know who proposed this lame rule that it should be out of scope when it wasn't and was clearly part of all the sepcs - SSP and DSAP specs.

If people voted under the disquise of a general "NO MAIL" concept across the board, well, it is clear now this is not what they voted for because you are making provisions for it.

I don't understand why is so secret. I don't want a NO-MAIL DKIM policy to be dependent on a KLUDGED MX concept or LMAP support.


--
Sincerely

Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com



_______________________________________________
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

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