Re: Why we don't require requirements

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 23:55 -0500, wayne wrote:
> SES has certainly been discussed on this list, and ABBS should have
> been when SES and BATV were discussed.  I would like to know if *this*
> (proposed) working group is still considering them or if they have
> been moved to CLEAR.  If CLEAR is just about BATV, then I'm guessing
> that SES and ABBS will be still be discussed here.

I have to admit I haven't been paying a huge amount of attention in the
past few days, but I believe it was decided that SES was outside the
scope of what people wanted to cover in CLEAR.

That seems strange to me -- SES and BATV are basically the same thing in
principle. SES just presents a few more options for how you can _use_
BATV addresses, that's all -- like a stunt DNS server and something
equivalent to the SPF 'exists' mechanism, etc. And the option of putting
a message-digest into the reverse-path which get validated. While BATV
is a minimal 'spec' to capture the essence of the idea, SES takes it
further. I think it makes sense to discuss them in the same forum.

-- 
dwmw2