Many thanks to Dave for bringing this up.
At 2:55 PM -0400 7/14/07, Dave Crocker wrote:
The overview document states that it is seeking Informational RFC
status. Further, it does not include the usual citation and
statement that normative vocabulary is used to assert normative
requirements.
Nonetheless, the document has quite a number of apparently normative
statements -- including some in uppercase -- such as:
. . .
This seems anomalous and raises a line of questions:
If the apparently normative statements are actually trying to be
normative and are reasonable, has the intent of the document changed?
Even though I've written some portion of the language in the
document, I have mixed feelings about this issue. Some of the
apparently-normative statements I like and some I don't -- and I
don't know which ones I wrote, so that's not the issue.
Beyond being a summary of DKIM, the document also has become
something of a higher-level "system specification". As such, some
of the normative language really pertains to the higher-level
integration of DKIM into an operational email service and well could
be extremely useful for guiding design, implementation and
deployment of DKIM. I think that's a good thing, but I think we
need to resolve whether this document is making architectural,
normative specification or whether it is providing tutorial
exemplars.
I think it would be fine to make this a standards-track document with
normative language.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Domain Assurance Council
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html