[ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no

[Damon]

-1 Keep

On 3/2/07, Hallam-Baker, Phillip <pbaker at verisign.com> wrote:
> This is pretty much my observation.
>
> Looking at it in the ternerary terms I suggested for 1368 I would say that the responses were
>
>   ESSENTIAL :     0%
>   USEFUL:        30%
>   NOT NEEDED:    60%
>   OUT OF SCOPE:  10%
>
> NOT NEEDED combines 'NOT USEFUL' and 'OTHER IMPLEMENTATIONS'.
>
> I do want to have the option to return to this on a recharter though. I would like to see us define a policy infrastructure that is capable of being the sole authoritative source of policy for outbound SMTP messaging.
>
> To do that I want to first prove proof of utility in the DKIM space then build on that base.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org
> > [mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
> > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 12:37 PM
> > To: ietf-dkim
> > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no
> >
> >
> > So far I've seen about two to one in favour of eliminating
> > this requirement so I guess Mike should not include it in the
> > next rev.
> >
> > Not that many opinions though (12, incl one offlist) so if a
> > storm of people show up saying that's wrong it can go back in
> > where we're making the changes after WGLC.
> >
> > Stephen.
> > _______________________________________________
> > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
> > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
>