I did suggest this at MAAWG - adding that part of this interop
workshop should be between different ISP and/or corporate mailserver
implementations of DKIM
This is so that the interop between in-production DKIM systems can be tested,
This is in addition to testing the interop between the various MTA
reference implementations (an iteration of which was already done some
time back)
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Ian Eiloart
<iane(_at_)sussex(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk> wrote:
Typically, an interoperability survey is required to go to draft.
Considering that you may wish to reverse the order a bit.
If that's the case (being new, I don't know whether it is or not), then
should the wording be modified to make the interoperability survey a higher
priority than item 1? That is: the dependencies should be done first, or at
least made explicit in the charter.
--
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops(_dot_)lists(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com)
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html