Stephen Farrell wrote:
Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 07:23:45 -0800 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip"
<pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> wrote:
I am happy to say that DKIM MUST support the use of ARF as A reporting
format Is this format standardized or does it at least have a stable
specification somewhere?
I think someone posted a link a few messages back.
which was
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-03.txt
My question on this is whether it'd really be needed now, as a part
of SSP, or whether it'd be ok to have it as an extension, defined
separately (I'm thinking of the milestones in our charter).
If the latter, then a personal I-D would be the place to start
and the WG can consider that when we see it.
I'm probably responsible for opening Pandora's box on this. In a
private conversation, I suggested to Murray that while an extension I-D
would be necessary to describe the addition of a reporting address to
DKIM key records, we might still have time to get this in SSP if there
was rough consensus to do so. The discussion has certainly raised
enough issues so that consensus is far from clear.
If the former, then I think we need to start by justifying why
the feature is needed but not mentioned in RFC 5016.
The short answer, for those who are in favor of adding it, is probably
"Sorry, we didn't think of it then".
Does a requirements document like 5016 describe ALL the requirements, or
a necessary subset?
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html