> Sometimes I wonder what the goal here is.
Why not ask me?
> Looking into http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-dkim-reporting
> it reinvents RFC 3834 without referencing it,
How? RFC3834 is a series of recommendations for a set of related
scenarios, not a specific application. It woul
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Adding to this, Murray Kucherawy's draft captures the i= (identity)
> parameter and a worthless s= (selector) parameter. The s= parameter
> offers little value since the d= (key domain) parameter is missing. Only
> the d= parameter (upon which the
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> ADSP isn't a published draft yet. When it publishes, I'll update.
It's Monday. Monday is perfect for nit-picking, since it's potential for
ruining an entire week is the best:
One should not say "published" for a draft, but if one were to say it, in
fact an
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> > it has a reference to RFC 1894 obsoleted by RFC 3464 *five* years ago,
>
> Interesting then that IDNits doesn't mention that at all, nor does
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1894.txt show it as obsolete.
RFCs are never modified after publication.
On Jun 16, 2008, at 1:13 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Adding to this, Murray Kucherawy's draft captures the i= (identity)
>> parameter and a worthless s= (selector) parameter. The s=
>> parameter offers little value since the d= (key domai
On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Douglas Otis wrote:
>> It's not worthless to an implementor or administrator interested in
>> figuring out why his/her mail isn't verifying properly.
>
> And to resolve such issues, knowing which Key Domain is being used is
> still important, but nonetheless ignored. If fact
Dave Crocker wrote:
> One should not say "published" for a draft, but if one were to say it,
> in fact an ADSP draft is indeed published.
>
> But it has not been declared a working group document.
I'm missing the distinction between "published" and "posted" (the latter
being the one you'd prob
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> In any case, thanks so much for being encouraging rather than
> taking the easy passive-aggressive and condescending way out.
Admittedly I was generally frustrated, and abused your draft to
whine. OTOH if you somehow missed those months to come to the
ADSP decision,
> Admittedly I was generally frustrated, and abused your draft to whine.
> OTOH if you somehow missed those months to come to the ADSP decision,
> and also propose to discuss parent domain again, that's also not very
> encouraging.
Your logic is faulty. The fact that I chose to participate in
(just to make sure the importance level of this thread is entirely clear: I
said "nits".)
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>> One should not say "published" for a draft, but if one were to say it,
>> in fact an ADSP draft is indeed published.
>>
>> But it has not been declar
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> I'm trying to make the working group aware of possibly influential
> dissent outside of the working group.
And how is that supposed to work ? Some persons known only to you
allegedly prefer the ssp-03 algorithm and are possibly influential;
what next ? There were t
On Jun 16, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Douglas Otis wrote:
>>
>>> While such a scheme might be seen as Sender friendly if adopted,
>>> this would doom DKIM. Selectors devoid of the publishing domain
>>> offers no value. To suggest otherwise would be
Douglas Otis wrote:
[skipping the parts we have now repeated often enough]
> After all, the goal is to finish the ADSP, ASAP. : )
Sometimes I wonder what the goal here is. Looking into
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-dkim-reporting
it reinvents RFC 3834 without referencing it, it h
On Jun 11, 2008, at 6:07 PM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Douglas Otis wrote:
>
> [skipping the parts we have now repeated often enough]
>> After all, the goal is to finish the ADSP, ASAP. : )
>
> Sometimes I wonder what the goal here is. Looking into
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-d
14 matches
Mail list logo
