I don't mean to stop the discussion that's going on; if y'all want to have
this,
'round and 'round again, it's OK with the chairs.
That said, the discussion doesn't look like it's going to answer the questions
we
need to sort out by Friday, so let me try to nudge things a bit.
Jim has proposed text to address the point we need consensus on. John has told
me, off list, that he also has some text -- John, will you either agree to
Jim's
text or post your own for debate, please?
What we need to do by the end of the week is this:
1. Decide whether the gist of Jim's proposal is something we can accept,
whether
or not it would be our first preference? John, for example, has said that it's
not his preference, but he considers it "harmless", and, therefore, acceptable.
1.5. For those who think we really need ADSP to use i= or something like it,
can
you *accept* taking i= out for now, in the interest of moving ahead with the
spec, possibly to add i= or something like it back in through an extension
later
if experience shows us that you're right?
2. Decide whether Jim's text, specifically, is what we want to go with, or
whether we want to change it. Item 1 is really what has the Friday deadline --
the chairs will be happy if it takes a little longer to settle on the exact
text,
as long as no one's using that as a ploy to buy extra time.
Carry on....
Barry
--
Barry Leiba, DKIM working group chair (barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org)
http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html