Dave Crocker wrote: > > > Jim Fenton wrote: >> Mark Delany wrote: >>> On Dec 12, 2007, at 10:36 PM, Jim Fenton wrote: >>>>> Is there a common subset of SSP that most everyone agrees on? >>>> I thought we had documented it in RFC 5016. >>> From an IETF procedural perspective that may well be so - my question >>> is more about whether the sentiment of the WG matches 5016? > ... >> My sense from reading the list traffic is that there are a lot of >> differing opinions on what the subset might contain, with results >> ranging from making SSP vaguely useful to actively hostile to DKIM >> deployment. > > Jim, > > I think you did not try to answer Mark's question. He didn't ask > about the range of individual opinions, which is the answer you gave. > He asked about a common subset that "most everyone agrees on". That > permits leaving out stray, outlier views. (And by the way, I don't > recall seeing a recent posting hostile to DKIM deployment.) > > In other words, Jim, he asked a classic rough consensus question. > > In fact my own reading of postings does show a rather solid common > subset, quite strongly. Just look for references to phrases like "not > controversial".
It is not my place to make a call on the consensus of the WG, but my read on recent discussion is that the sentiment is diverging rather severely from 5016. As I said in http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008646.html, application of SSP to only messages containing broken signatures brings with it the fear that application of a DKIM signature might hinder delivery of messages, because of the potential for breakage that would not exist for unsigned messages. This is the proposal that I see as being actively hostile to DKIM deployment. -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
