Dave Crocker wrote:
Jim Fenton wrote:
Mark Delany wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007, at 10:36 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
Is there a common subset of SSP that most everyone agrees on?
I thought we had documented it in RFC 5016.
From an IETF procedural perspective that may well be so - my question
is more about whether the sentiment of the WG matches 5016?
...
My sense from reading the list traffic is that there are a lot of
differing opinions on what the subset might contain, with results
ranging from making SSP vaguely useful to actively hostile to DKIM
deployment.
Jim,
I think you did not try to answer Mark's question. He didn't ask
about the range of individual opinions, which is the answer you gave.
He asked about a common subset that "most everyone agrees on". That
permits leaving out stray, outlier views. (And by the way, I don't
recall seeing a recent posting hostile to DKIM deployment.)
In other words, Jim, he asked a classic rough consensus question.
In fact my own reading of postings does show a rather solid common
subset, quite strongly. Just look for references to phrases like "not
controversial".
It is not my place to make a call on the consensus of the WG, but my
read on recent discussion is that the sentiment is diverging rather
severely from 5016.
As I said in http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008646.html,
application of SSP to only messages containing broken signatures brings
with it the fear that application of a DKIM signature might hinder
delivery of messages, because of the potential for breakage that would
not exist for unsigned messages. This is the proposal that I see as
being actively hostile to DKIM deployment.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html