Barry Leiba wrote:
> Coming back to this: I've still seen very little direct input on the
> charter proposal. JD likes it. Dave made some specific comments,
> which I responded to; there've been no other comments on what Dave's
> said. There've been no other specific proposals for changes to the
> text.
>
> Franck suggested gathering data on whether DKIM has been useful. I
> responded to that, saying that I don't think it's a necessary issue
> for chartering at this stage. Agreement or disagreement with that
> would be useful.
>
> Bill suggested looking at extensions for additional signature
> delegation, Michael Hammer agreed, and a thread branched off from
> there. Is that still an active consideration for the charter, or
> not? Charles wants to see something more about guidance for
> mailing lists. Is that an active consideration?
Barry,
(shaking head)
Is there a reason why my suggestions are off the table?
Namely, codify the existing specification and specifically adding
simple text that imply:
Forwarders SHOULD|MUST NOT break ADSP domain messages.
or
Forwarders SHOULD|MUST take into account ADSP Domains
before stripping and resigning or signing ADSP domain messages.
Why is this not a legitimate consideration for rechartering - Codify
the existing RFC specifications? Can you explain why it would not be
thus not even include it in your suggestions?
I believe the ADSP/FORWARDER guidelines are needed to help SMTP and
List Server developers and implementators guide their software designs
or operational setups.
I even suggested a far fetch possibility to "deprecate" RFC 5617, if
thats all even IETF procedurally possible, to help remove this
on-going dispute. I can understand this would be extreme, but there
was a agreement but another person with this.
--
HLS
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
