Dave Crocker wrote:
Stephen Farrell wrote:
The attached contains our view on the current list of SSP issues [1]
except
for those opened in the last week or so. (Sorry the formatting's a bit
crappy.)
...
Can you check that these seem ok, or comment where they don't?
...
1521 Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages new
dkim Nobody 0
dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net 9 days ago 9 days ago 0
Proposal: REJECT, but some wording changes may be needed for the next
rev,
thread is [4] I mainly saw opposition to the change suggested in the
issue,
and little support, but some text clarifying changes were suggested (e.g.
[5]).
[4] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008424.html
[5] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008467.html
Would you please explain the basis for assessing that this topic got
sufficient discussion and that there was rough consensus on it?
See above "I mainly saw..."
This is perhaps the most fundamental issue on the list, so it would be
advisable that we be quite careful about its consideration and resolution.
Sure. It'd be fine if others also go back through the thread and
see what they think and/or continue the discussion if that's needed.
S.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html