Stephen Farrell wrote:
So, by all means develop a summary, but unless its
intended to put it in the SSP I-D, this is not something
where we expect or need WG consensus, so it'd maybe be
better to do it on say some DKIM marketing list rather
than take up cycles here, or else to wait until we've
resolved most of the issues and the list is quieter.
Stephen,
I am asking for feedback. I didn't ask for it to be a working group item or
for consensus.
The document attempts a factual description of SSP. With references like
"rfc2822.From" it rather clearly is not a "marketing" document.
You might have noticed that there is some disparity of views about basic
aspects of SSP and even about SSP's purpose. You might also have noticed that
some holders of views strongly disagree with my own.
The first point should worry a working group chair about the basic credibility
of claiming working group consensus on the specification. One would think that
a working group chair would welcome an exchange that might ensure commonality
of understanding about basic aspects of SSP facts.
The second point should makes it useful for me to gather comments from this
list, before I circulate a purportedly factual description of SSP to others.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html