Stephen Farrell wrote:
First, I disagree. It wasn't very clear. The mere fact you are still
having this issue, proves the point.
What I see happening is folks who lost an argument trying to
re-open it.
What arguments? You preemptively prevented any argument and chastised
anyone (ME) who had any comments. You strictly wanted a +/- 1 straw
poll" with no comments - thats clearly promotes a "follow a chieftain"
poll path.
In addition, thats the point, I was under the impression it was never
lost because it was already part of two specs. But rather it was a more
about semantics for the requirements document:
- DESIGNS MUST NOT REQUIRE A NO-MAIL POLICY
is the not the same as:
- DESIGNS MUST NEVER INCLUDE A NO-MAIL POLICY
Instead what has clearly happen is that a decision was misinterpreted as
gospel and 100% out of scope by Phillip and now yourself. Not making it
a requirement for a particular DKIM Policy Protocol Proposal such as
XPTR is an acceptable idea, but Phillip is doing so by saying NOMAIL is
OUT OF SCOPE is wrong.
Saying NOMAIL is out of scope is SIMPLY incorrect. It is part of SSP
and DSAP.
What I was concern about has materialized. Now I am afraid the same will
happen with the NOT REQUIRED TO LOOKUP SSP issue as well which is
clearly something I am not following in my design. I will lookup the SSP
policy ALWAYS and I am hoping for a DNS lookup method that will
optimized this.
Finally, I gave up on DSAP 100% because Jim's new SSP draft covered all
the basic ideas. NO MAIL is important part of it. Using the low
censensus decisions for a Requirement Documents provision as a reason to
remove it from the SSP specs was the last thing I expected.
--
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