Stephen Farrell wrote: > > > Scott Kitterman wrote: >> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 07:23:45 -0800 "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I am happy to say that DKIM MUST support the use of ARF as A reporting >> format Is this format standardized or does it at least have a stable >> specification somewhere? > > I think someone posted a link a few messages back.
which was http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shafranovich-feedback-report-03.txt > > My question on this is whether it'd really be needed now, as a part > of SSP, or whether it'd be ok to have it as an extension, defined > separately (I'm thinking of the milestones in our charter). > > If the latter, then a personal I-D would be the place to start > and the WG can consider that when we see it. I'm probably responsible for opening Pandora's box on this. In a private conversation, I suggested to Murray that while an extension I-D would be necessary to describe the addition of a reporting address to DKIM key records, we might still have time to get this in SSP if there was rough consensus to do so. The discussion has certainly raised enough issues so that consensus is far from clear. > > If the former, then I think we need to start by justifying why > the feature is needed but not mentioned in RFC 5016. The short answer, for those who are in favor of adding it, is probably "Sorry, we didn't think of it then". Does a requirements document like 5016 describe ALL the requirements, or a necessary subset? -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
