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

[J D Falk]

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.

As another author, +1.

> The protocol is extensible. Let's gain experience with this basic
> protocol and let experience teach us where extensions will be useful.

I think this is the only possible way forward.  Maybe it'll turn out
that Hector and Doug are both right, but we won't know until we try it.
(I seem to recall saying something similar about SPF, long ago -- and
look how much we've learned since then!)


Michael Thomas wrote:

> 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.

Yep, in my opinion that's the breakthrough that makes ASP workable for
the most likely near-term use cases.  It gives the "strict" folks what
they need, without encouraging silly newbie mistakes.