> From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I could quibble, but I don't think I need to. To be clear, my
> understanding is that we really, really, strongly want to
> maintain compatibility with the existing key records (and
> we've not broken that so far). If some new field were def
Hi Phill,
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Hang on a second.
...hanging:-)
We have requirements here for a policy mechanism. That's not the same as
requirements for the SSP record.
At this stage, we supposedly don't even know that there will even
be an SSP record in DNS. Ok, we probably do k
- Original Message -
From: "Stephen Farrell"
> However, are there any potential SSP requirements that we've not
> mentioned at all this past week or so?
Throughout all this, I tried to keep my contribution as generic as possible
sticking with protocol implementation and security issues.
gust 04, 2006 7:00 AM
> To: ietf-dkim
> Subject: [ietf-dkim] All done on potential SSP requirements?
>
>
> Folks,
>
> We've batted about a load of stuff this week on SSP requirements.
> Some of it was new, some repeated from earlier rounds of
> discussion, but all
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 08:03:11AM -0400, Hector Santos wrote:
> I would rather see larger set of requirements which can then be prune
> down once we have a focused list or requirements, as opposed to
> having a lopsided short list which will most likely guarantee a new
> round of heated battles t
ot;Stephen Farrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "ietf-dkim"
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 6:59 AM
Subject: [ietf-dkim] All done on potential SSP requirements?
>
> Folks,
>
> We've batted about a load of stuff this week on SSP requirements.
> Some of it was n
Folks,
We've batted about a load of stuff this week on SSP requirements.
Some of it was new, some repeated from earlier rounds of discussion,
but all of stuff we needed to go over. But I guess that Mike now
has *plenty* of material to write up his reqs-00 I-D (which
he'll hopefully still manage
