Please remind me which issue on the tracker we're discussing. -Jim
Dave Crocker wrote: > > > Jim Fenton wrote: >>> It makes enormously good sense for us to seek to rein in rogue >>> independent third parties that have no relationship to the domain >>> owner. >>> >>> However to ask random recipients to enforce internal policies of the >>> domain owner seems considerably beyond what is reasonable for an >>> Internet scale protocol service. >> >> It isn't the internal policy that we're seeking to enforce. It's that, >> as a result of the fact that the internal policies are set up a >> particular way, that makes it possible to detect other unauthorized uses >> of the domain more directly. We may end up "enforcing" (your term, not >> mine) internal policies in the process, but that's a side effect. > > > So, when I stood at the microphone and asked whether SSP was seeking > to recruit recipients in enforcing contractual arrangements between a > signer and their agents, and was told yes, that statement was incorrect? > > This is merely one more example that, at base what we have here is a > very serious challenge for anyone seeking to obtain clear, precise and > consistent statements about SSP's purpose and use that have anything > approaching working group consensus. > > d/ _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
