Stephen Farrell wrote: > Fair enough. But in this case, there has perhaps been some > confusion as a result of not seeing this difference, so > raising it on the list seems reasonable/useful.
Dealing with confusion is almost always a good thing. However I do not see how a simple listing of generic "requirements" actually *deals* with the concern. By contrast, discussion about the implications for SSP strikes as potentially quite helpful. The more general point, here, is that requirements that are stated in a more general form are substantially less useful than ones that make statements that are concrete and have some obvious or stated relationship to the particulars of SSP. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
