ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Consensus call on d=/i= clarification of the clarification

2009-02-18 18:04:27
Stephen and Barry, 

I have a procedural question on how the responses to the consensus call
will be evaluated for options a,b,c,d. 

Will it be a+b vs c+d to get a general sense of direction and then
evaluate each option with in an approach or will each option be
evaluated independently (that is, response to a would be considered
separately from responses to b and responses to c evaluated separately
from responses to d)?

Thanks in advance

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 11:36 AM
To: ietf-dkim
Cc: barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org
Subject: [ietf-dkim] Consensus call on d=/i= clarification


Hi All,

We've had some recent discussion about d=/i= on the list
and a couple of concrete proposals for clarifications to
make to RFC 4871.
   - The first is Dave's erratum I-D. [1]
   - The second is a proposal from Eliot.[2]

Barry and I would like to see if there's rough consensus
on one of these, and, if so, we'll then work with Pasi to
get that processed. (There is an open question as to whether
the erratum I-D fits the RFC editor's erratum model or not,
perhaps mostly due to its length, but we'll handle that if/when
we have WG rough consensus on the meat of the topic. For now,
ignore the process issues, and let's see what clarification
we'd like.)

So, can you please reply to the list with *one* of the
following opinions, before the end of next Monday, Feb
23rd.

(a) The erratum I-D [1] is ready to go. Process it.
(b) The erratum I-D [1] is the way to go, but needs work.
    (Then specify your changes in "NEW"/"OLD" style.)
(c) Eliot's proposal [2] is ready to go. Process it.
(d) Eliot's proposal [2] is the way to go, but needs work.
    (Then specify your changes in "NEW"/"OLD" style.)
(e) None of the above.

Thanks,
Stephen & Barry.

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata
[2] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2009q1/011150.html

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>