Stephen Farrell <stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie> writes:
Please stop all this ADSP "good"/ADSP "bad" repetition.
ADSP is finished WGLC and the only thing on our agenda
for it now is pushing it further along the process.
The might, or might not, require some minor change as a
result of the resolution one of the 16 errata for 4871,
however, forgetting ADSP, submitting it as experimental,
making wholesale changes etc. are just not on our agenda.
In this WG we've followed an explicit process of requiring
more support/evidence for late changes, when compared to
early changes. At this point, a substantive change in
the content or direction of ADSP would IMO require its
proponent to go away and produce a lot of evidence that
a very substantial number of WG participants have in
fact changed their opinions. I've seen nothing anywhere
approaching that.
So there is really no need to regurgitate all those old
opinions, it just serves to annoy people.
Stephen.
Totally i agree with you. Actually ADSP depends on DKIM signature
specification reexamining now, i think.
--
Byung-Hee HWANG, KNU
∑ WWW: http://izb.knu.ac.kr/~bh/
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html