Scott Kitterman wrote:
I'm still waiting to see if this group manages to produce something
worth deploying.
BTW, after Dave's review I actually looked into the SSP draft again,
and found that we're talking about less than 25 bytes, if the bogus
[FWS] and the ts-flags are trashed.
For some of Dave's objections like "why the 1st author, why ignore
the sender" (chiming in: why ignore PRA while at it) I'd say indeed,
why. For his objection that the sender can't be different from all
author addresses I've no clue what he's up to, we discussed the case
of mailing lists only a week ago, and everybody (but me) apparently
agreed that this is as it is. IMO it's therefore a SHOWSTOPPER for
2821bis 3.9, and maybe for the complete "2821 to DS now" movement.
A big part of Dave's other objections concerned issues with likely
pointless DNS queries, odd wildcard emulations, and trimming crude
_ssp._domainkeys labels.
For *25* bytes (adding an ssp tag 29) I'd know where to find a DNS
record complete with its own registered type, wildcard compatible
(as far as it's at all possible), and not causing additional look
ups for "some" receivers.
Frank
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html