On 01.05.2011 10:38, Hector Santos wrote:
Again, its about protocol consistency. So maybe I should ask the
chairs for:
"Consensus needs to be reevaluated"
IMHO, it needs not: It is premature to define an ODID now. ADSP is
considered somewhat broken, and for this message, for example, it seems that
the relevant id should be "mipassoc.org" rather than "tana.it". ODID would
risk to be a candidate for removal like AUID.
From an engineering POV, policy developments are closely related to the
verification software, as a matter of facts, so that cleaning up the
definition of the interface between them doesn't seem to be urgent.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html