Arvel Hathcock wrote: > The more I ponder this topic the more I'm inclined to believe that the > flags "I sign everything" and "I don't send mail" are the base concerns > that DKIM SSP must address. I'm optimistic that, if one isn't > fundamentally opposed to the entire SSP concept from the outset, we > should be able to reach a consensus that this basic functionality is > central to an SSP system that can do anything useful at all. > > I think we've got a winner here -- and deliverable within a reasonable > time frame -- if we can keep the core requirements to a minimum.
The gist of this sub-thread suggests that the requirements for an initial SSP specification are simply: 1. It must be extensible (another IANA registry) 2. The initial set of practices that can be published receive quick, strong support -- that is, clear rough consensus -- in the working group. In other words, if there appears to be any degree of concern, controversy or lack of general interest in a feature, it should be immediately deferred. (Deferred does not mean ignored or dismissed. It means deferred.) d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
