[ietf-dkim] The URL to my paper describing the DKIM policy options

[Dave Crocker]

Arvel Hathcock wrote:
 > The more I ponder this topic the more I'm inclined to believe that the
> flags "I sign everything" and "I don't send mail" are the base concerns
> that DKIM SSP must address.  I'm optimistic that, if one isn't
> fundamentally opposed to the entire SSP concept from the outset, we
> should be able to reach a consensus that this basic functionality is
> central to an SSP system that can do anything useful at all.
> 
> I think we've got a winner here -- and deliverable within a reasonable
> time frame -- if we can keep the core requirements to a minimum.


The gist of this sub-thread suggests that the requirements for an initial SSP
specification are simply:

1. It must be extensible (another IANA registry)

2. The initial set of practices that can be published receive quick, strong
support -- that is, clear rough consensus -- in the working group.  In other
words, if there appears to be any degree of concern, controversy or lack of
general interest in a feature, it should be immediately deferred.  (Deferred
does not mean ignored or dismissed.  It means deferred.)

d/

-- 

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net