Good point, Arvel and Scott K. I'm happy to participate in a discussion of the Introduction, but not a separate non-deliverable.
-Jim Arvel Hathcock wrote: > If what you say is true then we should shore up the Introduction. > Failing that, I propose that we focus working group time on working > group deliverables. This isn't one of them. > > Arvel > > > Dave Crocker wrote: >> Folks, >> >> If non-participants are to be asked about the potential use of SSP, >> it helps to have a description of it that is concise, complete and >> for which there is reasonable consensus about the content. Simply >> handing non-participants a point to the specification is useless for >> all but the most technical and dedicated. >> >> To that end, I've pulled some text from my review, as a candidate. >> It's intent is not to judge SSP but to describe its salient basis and >> functions. In other words, what is it, rather than is it good, bad or >> broken? >> >> Obviously I have no expectation that my writing is entirely without >> judgment, so I would like to get some working group review of the >> text, to see if we can agree on text that is factual and useful: > > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
