Barry Leiba wrote:
At this point, I ask that issues be brought out specifically and
individually. Please post minor editorial things to this thread. If
you still think there are substantive issues, please start a new
thread for each, and prefix the subject with "Issue:". As we discuss
those, if any come up, let's keep the discussion focused on the issue,
and not wander off in other directions. In particular, let's avoid
discussions of what we might change here and there, whether we like
ADSP or not, and so on.
I will also appreciate posts to THIS thread that say "I've reviewed
it, and it's ready to go."
Concur.
But it be should be understood that "ready to go" maybe include
recognition for amendments that is not just about nits or typos.
I'm ready to endorse the "ready to go" last call with one
consideration that was now made possible by opening the door with the
last minute Trust Assessment layer introduction in section 2.3. That
addition now makes Author Domain identity Policy Assessment to be
equally considered as part of the DKIM specs.
So if we wish to preempt these nuisance discussions, we can a)
continuing to ignore or shun it, b) add policy assessment semantics to
help serve DKIM total deployment interest or c) we can remove the
independent trust assessment service evaluation layer semantic that
should had been snuck in at the last minute in the first place without
keeping it open ended.
--
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