On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Steve Atkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > I suggest we remove some of the features that > complicate deployment and/or add no value, and > I think a -bis draft is a reasonable point in the process > to do so. >
Trimming the fat would be one way to go, yes. And after that I'd suggest devoting some energy to an implementation white paper, and possibly another interoperability workshop to make sure various implementations are completely up to spec with -bis. To clarify my comment upthread .. move to a draft standard if you absolutely need it as a draft standard, But as John Levine pointed out .. 'i wouldnt bother'. In practice, I'll take a sufficiently mature -bis, especially when there is running code implementing it, and it is interoperable with other implementations. --srs _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
