Pasi(_dot_)Eronen(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com wrote:
I wasn't following DKIM when RFC 4871 came out, so I'm not in
very good position to guess here. But educated guesses from folks
who were around back then are welcome -- if most folks guess
this would have been accepted, I'm willing to reconsider.
...
Right -- but if it's a change that probably doesn't reflect community
consensus at the time when RFC 4871 was approved, it needs to go
through the process.
Pasi,
First, many thanks for such a thorough and helpful response.
The idea of considering "what would have been consensus at the time the working
group was developing the spec" is an interesting. Given that most groups have
trouble figuring out what consensus is at the time it is happening, trying to
guess what would have been consensus a year or two in the past is quite a
challenge.
I suggest that trying to assess consensus *now* is a more tractable exercise.
We could craft the charter text on 4871bis to specifically include
only the errata reported to RFC Editor as of today, plus the things in
rfc4871-errata-00 -- and exclude everything else. It would still take
some months, but I think less than six.
Except that the last few days of discussion seem to be raising quite an array
of
items that seem relevant to a revision effort, and substantial. This does not
bode well for a quick effort.
ps. Independent of the formal IETF publication barriers that we
encounter, the working group can still resolve the current topic, by
formulating working group consensus, and then post it to the
dkim.org web page. That's not the same as formal IETF publication
but can still declare it for community use.
Yes, I think this could be indeed valuable. You could e.g. do a WGLC
for the rfc4871-errata draft, reach rough DKIM WG consensus on that,
and post a statement saying so. That's not the same as IETF consensus,
but probably a good working assumption while 4871bis goes through
the process.
Hmmm. I guess I hadn't realized that getting Errata posted as being "approved"
required a full IETF process.
If the Errata could be posted with the RFC Editor as "approved by the working
group" that might suffice, for the quick effort.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html