ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2007-06-06 06:48:27


Stephen Farrell wrote:

Hector,

Tomorrow I'll dig through the archive and find the reference
for where we agreed that the "nomail" requirement text that was
previously in the ssp-reqs draft would be excised.

If someone in an earlier TZ wants to do that in the meantime,
you'll have my thanks,

No volunteers eh;-)

So I went back in time and found:

Issue 1365 [1] included a mention that we could/shoud
delete the "never send mail" item.

That was raised by Eric on the list [2] in February and
dicussed at length.

Following that discussion I started a strawpoll [3] that
resulted in a 2:1 ratio [4] in favour of deprecating the
feature in SSP.

That's all nice and clear so "nomail" is out of scope, as
the WG agreed, even if not overwhelmingly. It seems like
all of the people who wanted to keep the feature then still
do, and I've not noticed anyone changing their mind. So,
there's no reason to reopen this that I can see.

So let's be grown-ups and move on,
Stephen.

[1] https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1365
[2] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q1/007139.html
[3] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q1/007185.html
[4] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q1/007254.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

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