On Sunday 09 December 2007 17:49, Dave Crocker wrote:
Arvel Hathcock wrote:
The first version of SSP that is standardized needs to have a much
shorter and simpler decision tree, if interoperable deployment is to
be achieved anytime soon after publication.
Although I'm all for simplification, I wouldn't worry much about this
issue. 10 steps is hardly a crucible.
For Internet-scale adoption, this type of complexity can be fatal,
particularly when it pertains to a level of policy communication for which
there is no precedent.
Well, ok, other than SPF -all... from which we ought to learn some lessons.
Yes. And in my experience, as one of the leaders of the SPF project, the
biggest mistake that was made in RFC 4408 was to not be more explicit about
sender expectations or preferences. Many times I've been involved in
discussions with large recievers about SPF receive processing. I regularly
hear concern about rejecting mail, "Because the RFC doesn't explicitly say
that's the expected action".
So, from someone who has actually worked on that particular project and not
just had a lot to say about it, there is a definite lesson to be learned,
although probably not the one you were thinking of.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html