If what you say is true then we should shore up the Introduction.
Failing that, I propose that we focus working group time on working
group deliverables. This isn't one of them.
Arvel
Dave Crocker wrote:
Folks,
If non-participants are to be asked about the potential use of SSP, it
helps to have a description of it that is concise, complete and for
which there is reasonable consensus about the content. Simply handing
non-participants a point to the specification is useless for all but the
most technical and dedicated.
To that end, I've pulled some text from my review, as a candidate. It's
intent is not to judge SSP but to describe its salient basis and
functions. In other words, what is it, rather than is it good, bad or
broken?
Obviously I have no expectation that my writing is entirely without
judgment, so I would like to get some working group review of the text,
to see if we can agree on text that is factual and useful:
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html