Hector Santos wrote:
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?
See reference [2] from my earlier mail - its the start of a long
thread.
The rest has been dealt with already, other than:
> 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.
If people who wanted to remove the requirement, were in agreement
about including the feature, that'd be interesting. All I see so far
are those who wanted the requirement in, still wanting it in.
This discussion uses up the attention span of the list and distracts
from possible progress towards resolution of the issues Jim wanted
discussed. If we can sort out those then I'll be much more open
to coming back to this kind of thing later on.
We have a requirements draft that's been through WGLC. Let's produce
a protocol that meets that set of MUSTs.
Then by all means you can suggest we revisit the nomail issue, but
not now.
S.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html