Ah come on guys! We all know what the problems are, we know the sides and what colors we wear. Is it possible to come up with a compromise to solve this conflicts once and for all?
Dave, don't you want receivers to follow RFC5585 design? If so, then what can't we get the Outputs described for that design to work? From what I can see, there are four variables: status REQUIRED SDID REQUIRED, MANDATORY for Trust Identity Assessor (see 2.7) AUID OPTIONAL, see 3.11 ODID OPTIONAL for Checking Signing Process (see RFC5585) We have the REQUIRED/MANDATORY identity you want. But you have the others too. What is technically wrong with this? -- Sincerely Hector Santos http://www.santronics.com Dave CROCKER wrote: > > On 5/4/2011 2:47 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: >> On 05/04/2011 02:32 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: >>> On 5/4/2011 2:29 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: >>>> I should also expand that this entire situation started with Crocker > .... >>> Right. It was all me. Another ad hominem. Nice. >> History is a personal attack? Who knew? > > > Ahh. > > Before using a term -- especially one with social and legal import -- it's > worth > doing the work of understanding what the term means. > > As usual, wikipedia is a reasonable reference: > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem> > > > d/ > -- Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html