Dave Crocker wrote:
Stephen,
I asked a fairly simple question about your pressing for a Last Call.
As nearly as I can tell from your response, citing the requirements
document and extensive background, you are in fact taking the view that
there is sufficient working group consensus to assert that the document
is ready for Last Call.
While, no, your note indicates that the issues being raised will not be
"ignored" their import appears to be rather minimal to you, no matter
that some go to fundamental points.
Please clarify.
Sure.
My reply is on the record and is clear, i.e. I've an open mind.
In this case that means I think you may succeed in your apparent
desire to convince a bunch of folks against (aspects of) the
current SSP draft, or then again, perhaps they'll like it
nonetheless. We'll see. As it happens, I sympathise with some,
but not all, of the issues you raise.
Aside from that, I tend not to aim to be argumentative & wish
more folks on this list had similar discipline. My thanks go
to those with a similar approach. (And yes, that is an indirect
rebuke specifically aimed at aspects of your otherwise overall
excellent contribution to DKIM, i.e a mixed message;-)
Regards,
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html