Ah come on guys! We all know what the problems are, we know the sides
and what colors we wear. Is it possible to come up with a compromise
to solve this conflicts once and for all?
Dave, don't you want receivers to follow RFC5585 design? If so, then
what can't we get the Outputs described for that design to work? From
what I can see, there are four variables:
status REQUIRED
SDID REQUIRED, MANDATORY for Trust Identity Assessor (see 2.7)
AUID OPTIONAL, see 3.11
ODID OPTIONAL for Checking Signing Process (see RFC5585)
We have the REQUIRED/MANDATORY identity you want. But you have the
others too.
What is technically wrong with this?
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com
Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 5/4/2011 2:47 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 05/04/2011 02:32 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 5/4/2011 2:29 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
I should also expand that this entire situation started with Crocker
....
Right. It was all me. Another ad hominem. Nice.
History is a personal attack? Who knew?
Ahh.
Before using a term -- especially one with social and legal import -- it's
worth
doing the work of understanding what the term means.
As usual, wikipedia is a reasonable reference:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>
d/
--
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