[ietf-dkim] we don't know what SSP means

[Stephen Farrell]

Michael Thomas wrote:
> Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>
>>> But, let's see what happens as we close out the work on ssp-reqs.
>>>
>>> Speaking of which, Mike hopes to have a -01 out during the next
>>
>>
>>
>> Stephen,
>>
>> Normally, revisions to working group documents follow explicit 
>> assessments of rough consensus about changes.
>>
>> I do not recall seeing this done about SSP, for the changes to be made 
>> to Mike's doc.
>>
>> So, what is the basis for Mike's making changes?
> 
> Well, for better or for worse, I'm just trying to chronical what I've 
> been seeing
> happen here that seems to rise above repetition from single sources. 
> Feel free to
> disagree with my take and open an issue so that we  can actually come to 
> consensus.
> I believe that the plan is to start doing the jabber thing again too.

That is the plan, and Mike's efforts to capture things that are likely
to be issues in the tracker should help us to make progress,

S.