> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ietf-dkim- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 11:19 AM > To: ietf-dkim > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP > tounsigned messages > Importance: High > > > > Summary of proposal: > > > All text that causes SSP to be applied to an already-signed message > > needs to be removed.
+1 -Ellen > > > Folks, > > I've reviewed the thread that took place on this topic. Here are summary > statistics: > > Total postings in thread: 46 > > Number of different people posting: 14 > > Apparent REJECT of proposal: 4 > > Apparent ACCEPT of proposal: 5 > > > I would like to ask folks with an opinion about this proposal to post an > explicit note stating support or opposition. Some of the existing posts > were > about substantive issues in the proposal, but did not clearly indicate > support > or opposition. > > Given that this issue goes to the core of a significant fraction of the > current specification's functionality and given that there is at least an > implied requirement for the functionality in the SSP requirements RFC, > I'll > ask folks to do both a +1/-1 *and* to explain their reasons. > > I also do not find a record in the archive of working group agreement to > add > the features in question. So an assumption that the features should be > retained unless there is a rough consensus *against* is problematic. > Citing > the SSP requirements RFC is comforting, but questionable, absent any > history > of group discussion and clear rough consensus about the matter. > > d/ > > -- > > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
