Gerrit Pape <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't think that there's a possibility for an incompatibility, > that's why I now implemented the Message-ID trick.
Take a look at http://mla.libertine.org/tmda-workers/2003-05/msg00063.html JC's ``Consent token protocol'' is what evolved into the CRI draft that I posted yesterday, but I may be wrong. I will doublecheck. > I think it'll take a long time until one of the proposed standards > is accepted Very true, but at least this would give us interoperability until a standard emerges. At that point, I'd migrate to the standard, but I assume you (and ASK) would as well? > and since the special usage of the Message-ID does nothing which > could cause trouble for such proposed standards, it can be deployed > right now. This isn't a guarantee, but I think my earlier point is enough. If we adopt your suggestion now, and then move to the standard when it emerges, we'll all be fine. > I could write up a technical document on how it works, but my > english skills are not good enough to push it, and convince other > people. Your English seems fine to me, but if you'd like, I can assist in the drafting of this document (correct and embellish where appropriate to enhance and maintain clarity). Then at least we'd have a published spec available somewhere where other adopters could evaluate it. I can help field questions/comments from that point on as well. Such a document which would explain the concepts in general, non-qconfirm specific terms would help me understand how this could be implemented in TMDA as well. I've read your online documentation, and while the Message-ID generation is straightforward, I'm not entirely clear on how you are handling the auto-confirmation portion. _________________________________________________ tmda-workers mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers
