Assertions suggested in SSP such as '~' (signs some?), '-' (third-
party?) offers questionable benefit and delay. Grading email with
respect to "partial" conformance offers a means for coercion
There does seem to be a swell of current opinion, as people think about
it and read the discussion, that any sender signing declaration (let's
consider moving away from the term "policy") should simply start with a
straight "I sign everything" (or not), which doesn't get directly
into the "what does that really mean, and who's responsible for
interpreting it" questions. At that stage, we take the "partial"
issue out of it.
That'll be a good thing for us to get back into a discussion of, when
the time comes to discuss it. I think we'll do some {SSP/SSD/whatever
we wind up calling it} discussion when we get to the threats document,
after the charter's settled. And then, of course, the bulk of it will
come later, when we're actively working on the SS{P/D/x} document.
For now, let's all think about what aspects of SS{P/D/x} we need to
consider for the threats document, and what is a matter for banging out
later in the detailed SS{P/D/x} brawl.
Barry
--
Barry Leiba, Pervasive Computing Technology ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/l/leiba
http://www.research.ibm.com/spam
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org
