[ietf-dkim] SSP requirements
dhc at dcrocker.net
Tue Aug 8 09:17:58 PDT 2006
Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>> OK a new point, the SSP requirements need to be addressed to different
>> 1) Authors of software
>> 2) Operators of software.
> I don't recall seeing this mentioned before!
Are "requirements" documents now expected to contain boilerplate requirements
that apply to every single specification produced by the IETF? How is that
As soon as we allow items like the above onto the list, we automatically need to
list large numbers of others, concerning deployment, administration, operations
and use. None of these will have any meaningful benefit to the list, other than
to make the list longer and to make the salient issues more obscure.
Perhaps we should restrict requirements documents to issues that are specific to
the topic at hand. It might also help if we do more than provide an
unmotivated, cryptic laundry list, but instead explain what the issues are, with
respect to the current topic, namely SSP.
My point is that we need to but a burden on those suggesting items for the list.
At the list, they need to explain how the item relates to the current topic and
why it is essential to class the item as a "requirement". It would also be
reasonable to expect some discussion of possible ways the "requirement" could be
More information about the ietf-dkim