[ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-02.txt and ASP

[Hector Santos]

Michael Thomas wrote:
> Wietse Venema wrote:
>> In my opinion, as one of the authors listed on the ASP draft, SSP-02
>> is close enough in spirit to ASP that I could live with either.
>>
>> The protocol is extensible. Let's gain experience with this basic
>> protocol and let experience teach us where extensions will be useful.
>>   
> 
> I have to say that I _really_ like discardable... I wish I'd thought of 
> that in the requirements draft as it really captures the jist of what I was 
> trying to get at.

You mean that the careful semantics that we tried to use, in not 
directly saying what we wanted or what was really going to to happen 
with 'suspicious or non-compliant" was a problem?

I see no difference in SSP::DKIM=STRICT or ASP::DKIM=DISCARDABLE, other 
than one was "beating around the bunch" but all verifiers know what was 
the ultimate outcome and this other is being more specific.

This is really all very strange.

-- 
Sincerely

Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com