[ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality

[Arvel Hathcock]

If what you say is true then we should shore up the Introduction. 
Failing that, I propose that we focus working group time on working 
group deliverables.  This isn't one of them.

Arvel


Dave Crocker wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> If non-participants are to be asked about the potential use of SSP, it 
> helps to have a description of it that is concise, complete and for 
> which there is reasonable consensus about the content.  Simply handing 
> non-participants a point to the specification is useless for all but the 
> most technical and dedicated.
> 
> To that end, I've pulled some text from my review, as a candidate.  It's 
> intent is not to judge SSP but to describe its salient basis and 
> functions. In other words, what is it, rather than is it good, bad or 
> broken?
> 
> Obviously I have no expectation that my writing is entirely without 
> judgment, so I would like to get some working group review of the text, 
> to see if we can agree on text that is factual and useful: