On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 17:00:36 -0000, Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To the extent that the above is not sufficiently clear:
The SSP specification needs to be modified to remove all directions
for recipient actions, instead limiting itself to statements about the
actions of a potential signer.
-1
The specification needs to allow the signer to say what he would *like*
the verifier to do.
So what SSP currently says is about right (though one might argue over
specifics, like the role of Sender:). The real problem is the way the
current draft *describes* thing that are merely advice from the signer to
the verifier. From that POV, it is a shambles, and until it has been
rewritten more coherently, we have no chance at all of agreeing upon it.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
