Stephen Farrell wrote:
Barry Leiba wrote:
Dave brought up, at the Monday DKIM IETF session, the idea of splitting
out the key-discovery parts from the base document. I've recently come
up with a need to have the canonicalization be separately referenced.
I'm throwing this out to the mailing list for discussion:
Good idea to resolve this now.
The only thing I'd add is to ask folks to also bear in mind
our charter [1] deadlines when suggesting new document
structures. The next milestone should be WG last call on
base in May, so if your suggestion is likely to cause that
date to slip, I guess it'd be good to include a justification
for that.
A split is guaranteed to cause that date to slip, fullstop.
As I've said, from a developer's standpoint, multiple documents
suck. But here's what I don't understand: if we split the documents,
we will have to submit all of the former parts of -base as a bundle
since they will necessarily have cross normative references. And
even if we could, a -base document that doesn't define, say, the
query mechanism and/or the contents of the RR would be completely
pointless -- and an invitation for people just winging it.
Please let's not go here.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html