-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 11:19 AM
To: ietf-dkim
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of
SSP
tounsigned messages
Importance: High
Summary of proposal:
All text that causes SSP to be applied to an already-signed message
needs to be removed.
+1
-Ellen
Folks,
I've reviewed the thread that took place on this topic. Here are
summary
statistics:
Total postings in thread: 46
Number of different people posting: 14
Apparent REJECT of proposal: 4
Apparent ACCEPT of proposal: 5
I would like to ask folks with an opinion about this proposal to post
an
explicit note stating support or opposition. Some of the existing
posts
were
about substantive issues in the proposal, but did not clearly indicate
support
or opposition.
Given that this issue goes to the core of a significant fraction of
the
current specification's functionality and given that there is at least
an
implied requirement for the functionality in the SSP requirements RFC,
I'll
ask folks to do both a +1/-1 *and* to explain their reasons.
I also do not find a record in the archive of working group agreement
to
add
the features in question. So an assumption that the features should
be
retained unless there is a rough consensus *against* is problematic.
Citing
the SSP requirements RFC is comforting, but questionable, absent any
history
of group discussion and clear rough consensus about the matter.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html