Just to be clear, I was proposing that we close 1399 as a duplicate of
1519, not the other way around.
-Jim
Douglas Otis wrote:
On Mar 1, 2008, at 6:55 AM, Jim Fenton wrote:
I'd like to shorten the list of open issues, so I'll start with the
issues that I consider clearly moot in the ASP draft (-ssp-03) or
that are duplicates of other issues. Hopefully these are
non-controversial.
WG chairs, I'd like to ask that you direct the closure of the
following issues, subject to WG consensus, of course:
1399 clarify i= vs. SSP
Duplicate of 1519.
Disagree.
Issue 1399 suggests i= might be included within an "all" signed
policy, however lacks details.
Issue 1519 notes SSP policy requirements conflicts with RFC 4871 and
recommends against restrictions on the i= parameter for unrestricted
keys.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html