[ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?
mike at mtcc.com
Mon Aug 7 07:38:34 PDT 2006
Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Mark Delany wrote:
>> All indications on this list are that a good number of us think "yes",
>> so the "strong" policy position needs comprehensive coverage in your
>> requirements I-D.
> Chair-ish quibble: I think the positions exposed on the list must of
> course be covered in reqs-00, but I also think the more words that
> are used to do that, the more disagreement we'll get. Put another way,
> I hope no-one wants to see a reqs-00 that has near as many words as
> have been posted to this list over the last couple of weeks.
> So s/comprehensive/adequate/ above seems better. I really hope Mike's
> draft is short and sweet, though that's a pretty tough challenge for
In fact the actual policy itself better be able to be reduced to a single
comprehensible sound bite or I think it's likely that we haven't done
our job -- if we can't state it concisely, how can we expect people
to understand hearing it for the first time whether it's something
they can use or not?
More information about the ietf-dkim