[ietf-dkim] 1359: ssp-requirements-01 // Outsource First Party Signing concerns extended

[Michael Thomas]

Stephen Farrell wrote:

> william(at)elan.net wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> No-one spoke against that, so please consider this closed/rejected.
>>
>>
>> You're quite wrong. 
>
>
> If so, apologies. Can you point me at the mail archive please? (I
> mean since we discussed this in the jabber session and I posted
> the summary.)

It's probably worth mentioning that some people speaking in favor of
something does not rough consensus make. I put these provisional requirement
into the draft to try to distill out what was on the list to see if they 
would *then*
achieve rough consensus. If it did not achieve rough consensus, I'd then 
remove
it from the draft. From what I can tell -- and I'm not the chair here --
at least as many people are against this requirement as are for it, 
which is not
generally considered to be rough consensus in my understanding.

       Mike