Jon Callas wrote:
Please translate your grouchiness into concrete suggestions on what
if anything should change in draft. There are so many different issues
being discussed here that your +1 one is essentially useless because
it doesn't track to anything actionable.
I think we should fall back to a minimal SSP that contains only the
"I-SIGN-ALL" policy, and we let the real-world deployment and desires
for additions control more in SSP than that. SSP2 can start in a year or
two, and then we see what is needed in the real world. We can even have
experimental things in the field to test them.
At least this is headed in the direction of action, but I really don't
see this relates to your previous +1. Or is not supposed to?
I've just been re-reading the current draft to implement it, and I have
to say that it's pretty bare bones, even though I have problems with
some of it too (and have opened issues against those problems). Part of
what seems to be going on here is that people are reacting to the
threads -- strawman and all -- and not the actual draft.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html