[ietf-dkim] Re: Issue 1382

[Michael Thomas]

 From the requirements standpoint, I'd just assume that we avoid this topic.
There are some pretty deep engineering and political tradeoffs and absent
actual proposals, it's really hard to imagine that a requirements draft 
would
finesse this topic correctly.

       Mike

Scott Kitterman wrote:

>On Monday 16 October 2006 10:21, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>  
>
>>So I'd suggest that we leave this issue [2] open for now, and come
>>back to the topic when we've got a concrete protocol on which we
>>can base the discussion.
>>
>>Does that sound ok for now?
>>
>>    
>>
>If that's the best I can get, OK.
>
>I was serious when I said that if we are going to have to cut and deploy a new 
>RR type for SSP we may as well stop now.  By the time that happens the 
>internet ecosphere will have routed around the protocol.
>
>>From my perspective a new RR type is a showstopper problem.  I'm not sure what 
>a more concrete proposal for a new RR type might do to change that.  
>
>However you want to handle it is fine though,
>
>Scott K
>
>_______________________________________________
>NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
>http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
>  
>