Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I'd like some help tackling the next version of the MLM draft.
People seem to have varying ideas about what should be removed and
perhaps appear in other documents now. I need some consensus on
a direction in which to proceed.
Unfortunately, as it has persistently been the pattern for the last
what 4-5+ years,
-1, Policy People or those who value it.
+1, Non-Policy People or the unrestricted resigner advocates.
Your MLM help correct engineering implementations issues between the
to groups.
I truly hope your are not force to split your document that minimizes
the need for Mailing List Software developers to correctly engineer
their products without producing erroneous DKIM signatures problems
for members.
For me, MLM has been an rekindled hope to finally add DKIM support to
the MLS component of our mail framework with some level of engineering
and RFC standard consistent among three WG documents:
RFC 4686 - Analysis of Threats Motivating DKIM
RFC 5016 - Requirements for DKIM Signing Practices Protocol
RFC 5617 - ADSP
Aren't the chairs or the DKIM ADs concern about these IETF engineering
conflicts when a MLM is being asked to IGNORE these WG work products?
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html