On 10/6/2010 1:57 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
>
> Apologies all for top posting. Having to use a different client due to
> technical difficulties.
>
> Murray, I'm violently agreeing with you that it is not strictly
> speaking a 4871 issue.
>
> Having said that, I believe that it is an issue that begs the
> question... where should it land? You are correct that this is the
> difference between implementation and standards. Either way, we need
> to look at the outcomes of what we do.
>
> I'm agreeing with you that IETF-DKIM may not be the place to address
> it...assuming there is a beleif that it is a problem at all. So the
> first question is whether this is a problem, if the consensus is that
> it isn't a problem, great...nothing more need be done.
>
> If the consensus is that it is a problem but not really a 4871 problem
> then do we just walk away from it and leave it at that - "not our
> problem"? Should we perhaps look for the place where the 5322 people
> roost (I hear that working group shut down as part of IETF reorg) and
> at least say... "hey, this came up in the context of 4871 and we
> believe there may be some wider implications and it may be worth
> considering whether 5322 should be considered in light of this".
>
One possibility is in a bis version of the Development, Deployment and
Operations document.
Tony Hansen
t...@att.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
