Stephen Farrell wrote:
Folks,
Mark has written a draft [1] that documents the pre-WG state of
domainkeys. This is to be discussed on the next IESG telechat,
with the goal being for it to be published as an historic RFC.
What is the reason for Historic, rather than Informational?
I am prety sure that historic has never been applied to a specification that was
not previously an IETF standard. The usual means of labeling an RFC that
specifies a popular, proprietary protocol is Informational.
The question: is it better for this document to be published as an
historic RFC "now" or at the same time as the standards track DKIM
base RFC is published? (Where all timings here are modulo the RFC
editor's queuing discipline.)
same time. we have enough confusion in the market, as it is.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html