On 01.05.2011 10:38, Hector Santos wrote: > Again, its about protocol consistency. So maybe I should ask the > chairs for: > > "Consensus needs to be reevaluated"
IMHO, it needs not: It is premature to define an ODID now. ADSP is considered somewhat broken, and for this message, for example, it seems that the relevant id should be "mipassoc.org" rather than "tana.it". ODID would risk to be a candidate for removal like AUID. >From an engineering POV, policy developments are closely related to the verification software, as a matter of facts, so that cleaning up the definition of the interface between them doesn't seem to be urgent. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html