J D Falk wrote:
My own view is that it's problematic to refer to what isn't, what is
underway, or what might be. It invites extraneous hassles, when there
is no need. The one exception might be to constrain scope, such as is
done in the list at the end of 1.1.
I was trying to read as if I wasn't a regular participant on ietf-dkim
-- in which case the obvious question, upon reading about signing
practices, is "wait, /how/ do I publish my practices?"
Unless I've missed something, I think this falls into the classic question of
how to partition description of a larger system or service, versus
specification
of the component mechanisms in the system.
When ADSP is finished, we'll need to have an expanded discussion to answer the
question you ask. Separately, one could imagine a paper that discusses a
larger
"vision", beyond what has so far been standardized. The Overview is trying to
describe what is, not what could be. A vision paper is free to wander all over
among what is, could be, shouldn't be, whatever.
You ok with leaving this out of the current Overview paper, on these terms?
Further, I think the agreement in the working group was to add more
discussion about signing practices when they are approved by the IESG.
That works for me.
Absent objections, I'll take that as answering the question I asked immediately
above...
Thanks.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html