Stephen Farrell wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
I am asking for feedback. I didn't ask for it to be a working group
item or for consensus.
Understood.
The document attempts a factual description of SSP. With references
like "rfc2822.From" it rather clearly is not a "marketing" document.
IMO its in-between.
What does that mean? What portions or aspects of it qualify as 'non-technical
marketing'?
Yes. That's why I'd rather that we focus on the document, not on
external text. If you were proposing new text for the introduction
then it'd be right on the mark, as-is, I worry that it'll be
distracting.
I'll repeat: You have a working group that has demonstrated a widely
divergent understanding of what SSP is. That tends to undermine claims of
real working group consensus.
You ought to welcome an exercise that could facilitate convergence of basic
points.
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.
Fair enough to do that, after we have WG consensus. For now, its
a little premature.
You think that formulating a summary statement of facts, after a couple of
years of effort and just before Last Call is somehow premature, particularly
when the lack of working group consensus on core decisions seems pretty evident?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html