(responding in-thread because this has two vote-changes. but I also raise
questions for which responses should be on new threads. /d)
On 1/22/2010 9:39 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> 3. Other 3rd-party signing issues (New protocol? Info doc?)
>
> Yea on the informational document, pending evidence that an actual protocol
> is needed. (I always support more informational documents, in the constant
> presence of evidence that the industry as a whole doesn't fully understand
> all the implications of DKIM and its related work.)
>
> Nay on the protocol until presented with evidence that this is an actual pain
> point.
+1 on 3 as a discussion effort, rather than specification effort. (I had
missed
the distincton.)
However, what is needed, beyond the Section 5.5 discussion already in
<http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dkim-deployment-10.txt>?
That is, this effort would need very clear goals. (Obviously discussion needs
to be on separate thread.)
>> 6. Specifying ADSP/forwarder guidelines for re-signing (is this different
>> from mailing list issues?)
>
> Yea. (3, 5 and 6 can all be combined into a single document, I would
> imagine.)
Perhaps, but again, what is insufficient about Section 7.3 of the Deployment
doc?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
