On Oct 17, 2006, at 1:47 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Should the ssp-reqs draft:
(a) become an RFC of its own, as soon as we can do that, or,
(b) be incorporated into the eventual SSP protocol RFC or,
(c) just be allowed expire once we're done with it, or,
(d) finish it but only send it to the AD at the same time as
the SSP protocol draft?
The ssp-reqs are abstract without a clearly defined underlying
mechanism other than DNS in some fashion. There are some general
goals such as "to allow an administrator to publish various
statements about their email accountability practices [that
recipients] take that into account when it receives an unsigned piece
of email."
There have been no considerations regarding more essential goals of
reducing disruptive message blocking, ensuring safe message
annotations, dealing with abusive message replay, or administrating
email-address/signing domain relationships. This draft instead
offers only general guidelines where the broader scope of essential
requirements are yet to be determined. As it stands now, option 'c'
seems like the best choice.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
