Michael Thomas wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
As for 5016, you are highlighting one of the problems with calling
such documents "requirements" since slavish adherence to its desires
eliminates any benefits from later insight.
What you call "slavish", I'd characterize as water under the bridge.
What you seem to be saying is that any single person should be able
to reopen with no barrier every bit of consensus that was achieved
in rfc5016. I'd like to hear what the actual barrier ought to be
from the chairs.
I've not talked to Barry about each specific issue in the tracker,
but our general approach is that the WG arrived at rough consensus
on 5016 and so anything else needs additional justification.
That includes additions (e.g. handling tag) as well as other
changes.
I don't have a precise definition of additional justification, but
I will talk to Barry to try work something out.
Meanwhile, as soon as I get some time to correlate the issues in
the tracker with our high-volume mail traffic (next week earliest),
I'll try to start us out on declaring as closed issues where we do
appear to have sufficient consensus.
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html