On Jul 16, 2007, at 3:03 AM, Charles Lindsey wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:01:34 +0100, Paul Hoffman
<paul(_dot_)hoffman(_at_)domain-assurance(_dot_)org> wrote:
Many thanks to Dave for bringing this up.
At 2:55 PM -0400 7/14/07, Dave Crocker wrote:
I think it would be fine to make this a standards-track document
with normative language.
I disagree. The purpose of an "Overview" is to give an informal
summary of the effect, and especially the reasoning and motivation
for, a collection of standards. So it may well outline what the
standards do, and indicate the sort of normative provisions they
would make (which can include indication of whether such provisions
are MUST/SHOULD/MAY).
But it should include somewhere wording such as:
"This document provides an overview of the DKIM collection of
related standards, indicating how they are intended to work
together to produce [list of desirable effects]. But this document
is not normative itself; {RFCxxx], [RFCyyy] and [RFCzzz] should be
consulted for the detailed normative requirements."
An overview should not be normative. Agreed.
At some point, corrections to RFCs describing the protocol might be
required, or a BCP document to explain desired methods to address
various issues might be appropriate, but much later. This overview
has not been reviewed from a perspective of noting whether it creates
new or conflicting normative requirements. Expectations were just
the opposite.
As a side note, would it be possible to reference the TPA-SSP instead
of the DOSP draft in the working drafts section on the DKIM website?
TPA-SSP will be easier to understand. You should have the XML and
HTML versions of this draft.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html