(responding in-thread because this has two vote-changes. but I also raise
questions for which responses should be on new threads. /d)
On 1/22/2010 9:39 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
3. Other 3rd-party signing issues (New protocol? Info doc?)
Yea on the informational document, pending evidence that an actual protocol
is needed. (I always support more informational documents, in the constant
presence of evidence that the industry as a whole doesn't fully understand
all the implications of DKIM and its related work.)
Nay on the protocol until presented with evidence that this is an actual pain
point.
+1 on 3 as a discussion effort, rather than specification effort. (I had
missed
the distincton.)
However, what is needed, beyond the Section 5.5 discussion already in
<http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dkim-deployment-10.txt>?
That is, this effort would need very clear goals. (Obviously discussion needs
to be on separate thread.)
6. Specifying ADSP/forwarder guidelines for re-signing (is this different
from mailing list issues?)
Yea. (3, 5 and 6 can all be combined into a single document, I would
imagine.)
Perhaps, but again, what is insufficient about Section 7.3 of the Deployment
doc?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html