[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: MASS/DKIM BOF Summary

To: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: MASS/DKIM BOF Summary
From: Tony Finch <dot@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:16:11 +0100
Cc: ietf-mailsig@xxxxxxx, IETF-DKIM <ietf-dkim@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mailsig/mail-archive/>
List-id: <ietf-mailsig.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mailsig-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <>
Sender: owner-ietf-mailsig@xxxxxxxxxxxx

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
>
> The point that I have been arguing however is that where a protocol is
> ALREADY DEFINED the charter should allow discussion of the relationship
> between DKIM and the existing work.

Why don't you write a draft that specifies how DKIM should be extended in
the way that you want? The hooks are there in the base spec.

Tony.
-- 
f.a.n.finch  <dot@xxxxxxxx>  http://dotat.at/
BISCAY: WEST 5 OR 6 BECOMING VARIABLE 3 OR 4. SHOWERS AT FIRST. MODERATE OR
GOOD.

References:
- RE: MASS/DKIM BOF Summary
  - From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip

Prev by Date: Re: How to solve replay with no specification changes
Previous by thread: RE: MASS/DKIM BOF Summary
Next by thread: The DKIM Vision
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread