Mark Delany wrote: > Or, is this mostly a matter of semantics with the end result being > pretty much the same SSP syntax, but a different set of semantics in > the specification? If so, can we work on the syntax and defer on the > semantics as a means of moving forward? > > If it's agreeable to others, I'd like to suggest that as a way of > moving forward, we focus on the meta-issue of how we resolve this > difference rather than focusing on the details of the difference.
1. I suspect the syntax is the same, and certainly suspect we need not focus on possible differences. 2. I think that the passive/active difference involves a superset/subset relationship. That is, I think that the active begins with the statements made in the passive mode, about the sender/signer, but extends them to tell the evaluator how to use those statements. 3. If #2 is correct, then my question is why the extended semantics are essential? What problems are created by not including them in the specification? What substantial benefits are obtained by including them? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
