ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Yahoo's domainkeys as historic: timing

2006-07-15 12:57:57
What is the reason for Historic, rather than Informational?

Good question. I had asked for Informational on the basis of the
deployment.


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.

As long as the RFC numbers turn out in the right order. Would it
confuse folk if the Information had a bigger number than DKIM?


Mark.

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html