There was supposed to be a poll, can we please start
that now ? Or roll a dice for ASP, ADSP, SPAD.
chair
You'll recall, perhaps, that Stephen said we'd discuss it until the 19th
(that's tomorrow), and then take a poll. So far, from the discussion,
I see overwhelming support for ADSP
Sorry I missed this earlier.
Given the acronym, I feel an overwhelming compulsion to shoot the suggestion
down. (Or am I mis-remembering the british WWI fighter?)
In spite of that, I like it.
d/
Jim Fenton wrote:
Stephen Farrell wrote:
Let's say folks have 1 week to suggest new names
Dave Crocker wrote:
(Or am I mis-remembering the british WWI fighter?)
A British Spitfire (WWII), or a French SPAD (WWI).
Signing Practices of Author Domains (SPAD). It's
even something you can pronounce, if that matters.
en.wikipedia
ADSP 14 hits, incl. Appletalk Data Stream Protocol
On Mar 15, 2008, at 1:53 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
There was supposed to be a poll, can we please start that now ? Or
roll a dice for ASP, ADSP, SPAD.
ADSP
-Doug
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
Arvel explained:
I think this approach is good enough in my case because although I
have been overly optimistic at times concerning our progress I have
nevertheless been warning my customers that SSP is contentious (much
MUCH more so than BASE) and thus likely to go through several
Do you think that the change to _asp or _adsp or _frodo and
all/discardable will cause unhappiness amongst your installed base, or
should we keep going with the near-consensus changes?
No, not unhappiness. At most some will consider it a minor annoyance
but they will recall that they were
Now I know you are fibbing.
You are saying that your customers actually remember being warned.
Have you been seeling to some off-world market niche?
d/
Arvel Hathcock wrote:
Do you think that the change to _asp or _adsp or _frodo and
all/discardable will cause unhappiness amongst your
You are saying that your customers actually remember being warned.
It's true that many don't read the release notes or pay attention to
official posts in MDaemon related discussion forums. But, in my view,
they were warned regardless. One can choose not to listen but one can't
say that
Arvel Hathcock wrote:
One can choose not to listen but one can't
say that nobody was talking.
again, your experience with your customers differs so dramatically with the
kind
i used to have to support. some were even in texas.
and you make a profit, too.
my stetson is off to you.
d/
On Mar 14, 2008, at 10:14 AM, J D Falk wrote:
Do you think that the change to _asp or _adsp or _frodo and all/
discardable will cause unhappiness amongst your installed base, or
should we keep going with the near-consensus changes?
Concerns raised about the term discardable have to do
Mark Delany wrote:
On Mar 12, 2008, at 8:20 PM, John Levine wrote:
Hello? Why? You mean it's out of line for me to point out that
people might not have appreciated the full implications of what they
were arguing about?
Based on the discussion I listened to in the DKIM session, I am
On naming conventions
Since there is ssp tags in the wild, the asp changes seemed reasonable
for various definitions of reasonable why not keep the name ssp and
avoid poking sticks at dns admins who (rightly so) don't want to
implement anything new until 60+ % of the user base has already done
On Mar 13, 2008, at 8:03 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On naming conventions
Since there is ssp tags in the wild, the asp changes seemed reasonable
for various definitions of reasonable why not keep the name ssp and
avoid poking sticks at dns admins who (rightly so) don't
Are there any current implementations of asp in the wild?
Yes, mine is one. There may be others, but I've not heard of any.
Disclaimer: this is just my own approach on how I've handled this issue - your
mileage may vary.
Back in early November 2007, MDaemon 9.63 was released which included
Stephen Farrell wrote:
I think a strawpoll where you can +1 all the ones you like might work
(if we've more than 2 or 3 options). Happy to get feedback on that.
Sounds good from here, so long as it really can be resolved in a week.
At present I mildly prefer ADSP over FroDoSigPo, because
Mike Thomas kvetched:
Dave. My irritation here is that it doesn't seem to even be on
anybody's radar that you are breaking implementations utterly and
completely.
Are there any current implementations of asp in the wild?
And, more importantly, are there any current implementations by anyone
J D Falk wrote:
At present I mildly prefer ADSP over FroDoSigPo, because author domain
will encourage people's brains to engage to figure out WTF an author
is. Either way, though, the non-IETF people who'll actually be relying
on this stuff will be about equally confused.
As the one who
J D Falk wrote:
Mike Thomas kvetched:
Dave. My irritation here is that it doesn't seem to even be on
anybody's radar that you are breaking implementations utterly and
completely.
Are there any current implementations of asp in the wild?
Yes.
And, more importantly, are there any
Sigh. It shouldn't be necessary to ask this.
Are there any current implementations of asp in the wild?
Yes.
Where?
And, more importantly, are there any current implementations by
anyone
who isn't on this mailing list?
Yes.
Where?
If there aren't, you're just wasting everyone's time
Michael Thomas wrote:
And, more importantly, are there any current implementations by anyone
who isn't on this mailing list?
Yes.
Please document them.
Please encourage their owners to express their own concerns over proposed
changes.
That we we can relieve you of the burden of seeming
J D Falk wrote:
Sigh. It shouldn't be necessary to ask this.
Are there any current implementations of asp in the wild?
Yes.
Where?
And, more importantly, are there any current implementations by
anyone
who isn't on this mailing list?
Yes.
Where?
If there aren't, you're just
Dave Crocker wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
And, more importantly, are there any current implementations by anyone
who isn't on this mailing list?
Yes.
Please document them.
Considering that you don't even believe that changing the DNS label
breaks interoperability, I'll pass on
Michael Thomas wrote:
I answered your questions and I'm wasting everybody's time? Oh I get it,
it was rhetorical. Who's wasting everybody's time here?
You provided responses but not answers. There was nothing helpful about your
responses, so the distinction is important.
Michael Thomas
Stephen Farrell wrote:
Let's say folks have 1 week to suggest new names (without
long essays please, Dave's mail is a good model). The
issue here is solely the name.
Just for the sake of being thorough, I'm going to cite a tiny concern
with ADSP and something that might address that
Dave Crocker wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
I answered your questions and I'm wasting everybody's time? Oh I get it,
it was rhetorical. Who's wasting everybody's time here?
You provided responses but not answers. There was nothing helpful about
your responses, so the distinction is
Michael Thomas wrote:
Gad, this is surreal.
Yes it is. So let's all stop it.
Please only continue posting on this thread if you have another
name to suggest.
Stephen.
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
I don't see your acknowledgement as being an acknowledgement of the
topic that Mike was talking about. When you break existing
implementations, even those implementations are of a draft version,
you do create problems for the people who are volunteering to live on
the bleeding edge --- and
Eric Allman wrote:
I don't see your acknowledgement as being an acknowledgement of the
topic that Mike was talking about. When you break existing
implementations, even those implementations are of a draft version,
you do create problems for the people who are volunteering to live on
the
Michael Thomas wrote:
Eric Allman wrote:
I don't see your acknowledgement as being an acknowledgement of the
topic that Mike was talking about. When you break existing
implementations, even those implementations are of a draft version,
you do create problems for the people who are
Stephen Farrell wrote:
I'm pretty convinced
the people debating these name changes were clueless about the
That kind of statement is not helpful.
Hello? Why? You mean it's out of line for me to point out that people
might not have appreciated the full implications of what they were
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mar 11, 2008, at 5:47 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
After reading Wietse's comment I'm wondering if (taking the long view)
we should consider calling it Administrative Domain Signing Policy.
+2^n-1.
While I'm at it, I also like FroDo.
I'm coming down on the side that the strong language against changing
drafts is unjustified.
Moreover, I prefer the name change because at the moment one could
implement the -02 draft, looking for _ssp and applying that algorithm,
*and* the -03 draft, looking for _asp and applying that
On Mar 12, 2008, at 11:15 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
So far, my own reading of postings is a very strong agreement for
ADSP.
Agree as well, where A could mean Author's Domain, as policy is
referenced from the domain used in the From header. Mike Hammer's
suggestion for Administrative
On 3/12/08, Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did document them, and you promptly shifted the goal post. Sorry, I'm
not playing along with this stupid game.
Gad, this is surreal.
Wow, indeed it is. Did you bring anything here with you, other than
your sword and anger?
You may have
Al Iverson wrote:
On 3/12/08, Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did document them, and you promptly shifted the goal post. Sorry, I'm
not playing along with this stupid game.
Gad, this is surreal.
Wow, indeed it is. Did you bring anything here with you, other than
your sword
Hello? Why? You mean it's out of line for me to point out that
people might not have appreciated the full implications of what they
were arguing about?
Based on the discussion I listened to in the DKIM session, I am
confident that people who proposed changing the name of SSP are fully
aware
On Mar 12, 2008, at 8:20 PM, John Levine wrote:
Hello? Why? You mean it's out of line for me to point out that
people might not have appreciated the full implications of what they
were arguing about?
Based on the discussion I listened to in the DKIM session, I am
confident that people who
Largely to repeat what I said at the mic, yesterday:
The switch from SSP to ASP was the simplest possible change that modified the
semantics of the name to be tailored to the From field, as it needs to be.
That said, I think that Pete's desire for an even more precise name, which is
thereby
Thanks Dave, I'd meant to start a timer on this.
Let's say folks have 1 week to suggest new names (without
long essays please, Dave's mail is a good model). The
issue here is solely the name.
After that we'll take a strawpoll as mentioned yesterday.
That'll start on the 19th and run for two
small clarification that I tossed off in the meeting:
I think it's tolerable to stay with ASP. However I think it would be better to
have a name that is more careful, per the kind of potential confusion that Pete
cited (and demonstrated?)
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
Michael Thomas wrote:
I'd be happy to change it back to ssp and ignore this churn altogether.
I wouldn't. More importantly, I believe the working group achieved consensus
on
the current name.
Remember: each name change == interoperability stopper.
I'd be quite interested in seeing your
Dave Crocker wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
I'd be happy to change it back to ssp and ignore this churn altogether.
I wouldn't. More importantly, I believe the working group achieved
consensus on the current name.
Remember: each name change == interoperability stopper.
I'd be
As the person who originally threw out the suggestion of ADSP on the
list (only half seriously), I agree with Pete. The author does not sign
and the author does not set the policy. It is the domain that is signing
(by virtue of publishing the DNS records, even if the author happens to
sign at the
Michael Thomas wrote:
It doesn't take much of a logic chain: the label first was _policy. Then
it was _ssp. Now it's _asp. Tomorrow it might be _frodo. Next day
something else. Each time you change it, implementations break in a
showstopper way.
Your argument appears to be that people who
Dave Crocker wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
It doesn't take much of a logic chain: the label first was _policy.
Then it was _ssp. Now it's _asp. Tomorrow it might be _frodo. Next day
something else. Each time you change it, implementations break in a
showstopper way.
Your argument
Michael Thomas wrote:
Your argument appears to be that people who implement Internet-Drafts
should have sway over the ability to change those drafts.
Hold sway != have a say. I think that people who have some
skin in the game should be considered carefully. What I read
here is dismissal
Wietse Venema wrote:
Michael Thomas:
Dave Crocker wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
It doesn't take much of a logic chain: the label first was _policy.
Then it was _ssp. Now it's _asp. Tomorrow it might be _frodo. Next day
something else. Each time you change it, implementations break in a
Dave Crocker wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
Your argument appears to be that people who implement Internet-Drafts
should have sway over the ability to change those drafts.
Hold sway != have a say. I think that people who have some
skin in the game should be considered carefully. What I
Michael Thomas:
Dave Crocker wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
It doesn't take much of a logic chain: the label first was _policy.
Then it was _ssp. Now it's _asp. Tomorrow it might be _frodo. Next day
something else. Each time you change it, implementations break in a
showstopper
Since we decided to change SSP to ASP to be more precise (thereby
breaking the existing implementations out there, which Dave seems to
think are irrelevant, Mike seems to think are critical, and I think
are somewhere in between), I'm in favor of making one more change (my
preference: ADSP),
Eric Allman:
Since we decided to change SSP to ASP to be more precise (thereby
breaking the existing implementations out there, which Dave seems to
think are irrelevant, Mike seems to think are critical, and I think
are somewhere in between), I'm in favor of making one more change (my
After reading Wietse's comment I'm wondering if (taking the long view)
we should consider calling it Administrative Domain Signing Policy.
While the only Administrative Domain currently signing would be the
author domain, it's clear that there is a certain amount of community
interest in
Eric Allman wrote:
Dave seems to be forgetting that early implementations of drafts are
a good way to get practical feedback into the process --- it's more
than a gedanken experiment. Mike seems to forget that these /are/
drafts, and drafts do (and should) change.
Hi, Eric. Welcome
53 matches
Mail list logo
