Dave CROCKER wrote:
Referring back to my message, I'm advocating that if we do anything, we
move to Draft Standard, and advocating that we not do another spin at
Proposed Standard. So are we agreeing?
I hadn't noticed anyone suggesting doing anything that cycled the
specification at Proposed. (The requirement placed on the Errata is
different than we're discussing for the -bis effort.)
Have you heard otherwise?
I don't know why it's my job to look this up in the list archives, but
anyway:
In http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2009q2/011923.html , Eliot
Lear says:
I would recycle at proposed, if we are going to do anything at all.
In http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2009q2/011924.html , Suresh
Ramasubramanian says:
-bis - yes. Definitely.
2. On whether to move to draft standard
While I was initially in favor of this, I am now uncomfortable doing so,
based on the lengthy debate we just concluded about errata. To me the
Qualified approval based on consensus gained in the -bis draft.
Which I think says "do -bis as Proposed Standard, then maybe go to
Draft". Hope I have interpreted Suresh's comments accurately.
In http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2009q2/011925.html , John
Levine says:
2. On whether to move to draft standard
I wouldn't bother. It makes no difference in the outside world, so I'd
rather direct our limited time to -bis.
In http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2009q2/011931.html , Jeff
Macdonald seems to agree with Suresh.
So, yes, I have heard otherwise.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html