Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> writes: > Please stop all this ADSP "good"/ADSP "bad" repetition. > > ADSP is finished WGLC and the only thing on our agenda > for it now is pushing it further along the process. > > The might, or might not, require some minor change as a > result of the resolution one of the 16 errata for 4871, > however, forgetting ADSP, submitting it as experimental, > making wholesale changes etc. are just not on our agenda. > > In this WG we've followed an explicit process of requiring > more support/evidence for late changes, when compared to > early changes. At this point, a substantive change in > the content or direction of ADSP would IMO require its > proponent to go away and produce a lot of evidence that > a very substantial number of WG participants have in > fact changed their opinions. I've seen nothing anywhere > approaching that. > > So there is really no need to regurgitate all those old > opinions, it just serves to annoy people. > > Stephen.
Totally i agree with you. Actually ADSP depends on DKIM signature specification reexamining now, i think. -- Byung-Hee HWANG, KNU ∑ WWW: http://izb.knu.ac.kr/~bh/ _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
