Dave Crocker wrote: > Stephen, > > I asked a fairly simple question about your pressing for a Last Call. > > As nearly as I can tell from your response, citing the requirements > document and extensive background, you are in fact taking the view that > there is sufficient working group consensus to assert that the document > is ready for Last Call. > > While, no, your note indicates that the issues being raised will not be > "ignored" their import appears to be rather minimal to you, no matter > that some go to fundamental points. > > Please clarify.
Sure. My reply is on the record and is clear, i.e. I've an open mind. In this case that means I think you may succeed in your apparent desire to convince a bunch of folks against (aspects of) the current SSP draft, or then again, perhaps they'll like it nonetheless. We'll see. As it happens, I sympathise with some, but not all, of the issues you raise. Aside from that, I tend not to aim to be argumentative & wish more folks on this list had similar discipline. My thanks go to those with a similar approach. (And yes, that is an indirect rebuke specifically aimed at aspects of your otherwise overall excellent contribution to DKIM, i.e a mixed message;-) Regards, Stephen. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
