Barry Leiba wrote: > At this point, I ask that issues be brought out specifically and > individually. Please post minor editorial things to this thread. If > you still think there are substantive issues, please start a new > thread for each, and prefix the subject with "Issue:". As we discuss > those, if any come up, let's keep the discussion focused on the issue, > and not wander off in other directions. In particular, let's avoid > discussions of what we might change here and there, whether we like > ADSP or not, and so on. > > I will also appreciate posts to THIS thread that say "I've reviewed > it, and it's ready to go."
Concur. But it be should be understood that "ready to go" maybe include recognition for amendments that is not just about nits or typos. I'm ready to endorse the "ready to go" last call with one consideration that was now made possible by opening the door with the last minute Trust Assessment layer introduction in section 2.3. That addition now makes Author Domain identity Policy Assessment to be equally considered as part of the DKIM specs. So if we wish to preempt these nuisance discussions, we can a) continuing to ignore or shun it, b) add policy assessment semantics to help serve DKIM total deployment interest or c) we can remove the independent trust assessment service evaluation layer semantic that should had been snuck in at the last minute in the first place without keeping it open ended. -- Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
