[ietf-dkim] Proposal to amend SSP draft with
stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie
Wed Nov 14 16:12:37 PST 2007
Jim Fenton wrote:
> Stephen Farrell wrote:
> I'm probably responsible for opening Pandora's box on this.
Well, you've done enough work on this to not get too beaten
up for that:-)
> In a
> private conversation, I suggested to Murray that while an extension I-D
> would be necessary to describe the addition of a reporting address to
> DKIM key records, we might still have time to get this in SSP if there
> was rough consensus to do so. The discussion has certainly raised
> enough issues so that consensus is far from clear.
>> If the former, then I think we need to start by justifying why
>> the feature is needed but not mentioned in RFC 5016.
> The short answer, for those who are in favor of adding it, is probably
> "Sorry, we didn't think of it then".
> Does a requirements document like 5016 describe ALL the requirements, or
> a necessary subset?
Neither; its the "rough consensus" set (which may or may not be a
subset if there is in fact a larger set on which we might agree,
but that's an unknown).
It is ok to add stuff, but the barrier post-5016 is a lot higher
More information about the ietf-dkim