On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 20:46:06 +0000 Stephen Farrell
<stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie> wrote:
Dave,
Now that you've raised a bunch of issues, (thanks for that) we'll
see whether or not we get an overall rough consensus as those are
considered.
Please just mark me down for -1 on all of them. I don't think there's
anything new in any of them. Rather than ad nauseum rehash of old issues,
let's just figure out if we're going to do SSP roughly as designed in the
IETF or not.
Personally, I've nether the time nor the energy to go through all this
again. This, in my opinion, the purpose of all this rehash. Unlike some
here I'm not a professional standards body jockey. I have customers to
serve and code to write.
All this last minute 'problem discovery' comes as no suprise to me. It's
one of the end games I had in mind when I objected to deferring SSP.
I've an open mind on how that might go, but we're not starting
from scratch here - we do have rfc 5016 and a couple of years
background, so achieving that consensus is quite possible.
Good luck on that.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html