On Sat, 24 May 2008 18:52:18 +0100, Arvel Hathcock
<arvel(_dot_)hathcock(_at_)altn(_dot_)com> wrote:
What do you feel are the technical deficiencies of
draft-levine-dkim-adsp?
The biggest problem of course is that it's not a working group document.
If we're to start working now on other documents then Doug Otis is ahead
of you guys in line since he's had a replacement offering for some time.
Let's not start down that road.
Let's just get on with having the chairs conduct a straw-poll. The
question is pathetically simple: Should the next draft of the working
group document retain the NXDOMAIN check or not? Yes or no. This is
really easy folks.
It is no earthly use asking whether the NXDOMAIN check should be removed
without at the same time stating what is intended to be put in its place,
since the answer to the question may be very dependent on that.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html