[ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages

[Stephen Farrell]

Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> 
> Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> The attached contains our view on the current list of SSP issues [1] 
>> except
>> for those opened in the last week or so. (Sorry the formatting's a bit
>> crappy.)
> ...
>> Can you check that these seem ok, or comment where they don't?
> ...
>> 1521    Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages    new    
>> dkim    Nobody    0
>> dhc at dcrocker.net    9 days ago        9 days ago    0
> 
>> Proposal: REJECT, but some wording changes may be needed for the next 
>> rev,
>> thread is [4] I mainly saw opposition to the change suggested in the 
>> issue,
>> and little support, but some text clarifying changes were suggested (e.g.
>> [5]).
>> [4] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008424.html
>> [5] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008467.html

> Would you please explain the basis for assessing that this topic got 
> sufficient discussion and that there was rough consensus on it?

See above "I mainly saw..."

> This is perhaps the most fundamental issue on the list, so it would be 
> advisable that we be quite careful about its consideration and resolution.

Sure. It'd be fine if others also go back through the thread and
see what they think and/or continue the discussion if that's needed.

S.