[ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality

[Jim Fenton]

Good point, Arvel and Scott K.  I'm happy to participate in a discussion
of the Introduction, but not a separate non-deliverable.

-Jim

Arvel Hathcock wrote:
> 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:
>
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
>