Well now that's ironic, MS asking someone to "not use/change something someone else defined". What's next, MS saying "please don't use FUD"? :) Terry Fielder Manager Software Development and Deployment Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes terry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fax: (416) 441-9085 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Jim Lyon > Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 8:20 PM > To: william(at)elan.net > Cc: ietf-mxcomp@xxxxxxx; spf-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: Alternatives drafts for SUBMITTER identity > > > > William, > > SUBMITTER as defined by your draft is a different concept > than SUBMITTER > as defined by draft-ietf-marid-submitter-xx. Related, but different. > > Your argument is that all would be well if we dropped the semantics > specified by draft-ietf-marid-submiter, and changed the specs > to use the > semantics you supply. While this might make everything fine from your > perspective, it doesn't from mine. I for one decline your invitation. > > Your comment that we should give the IETF and implementers a choice > about which to use is exactly on point. The easiest way to > do so is to > have different extensions, so that MTAs in conversation know exactly > what is meant by each other. > > Since the name SUBMITTER is already in use by > draft-ietf-marid-submitter, please choose another name. > > > -- Jim Lyon >
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>