On May 8, 2009, at 11:38 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
So let me try summarise and ask a question.
I don't think I've seen anyone who wants to do more than
just roll up the existing errata into a bis document, possibly
with some editorial changes I guess. I've not seen anyone
suggest that we add features or remove a raft of features
or make other substantial changes.
I suggest we remove some of the features that
complicate deployment and/or add no value, and
I think a -bis draft is a reasonable point in the process
to do so.
Cheers.
Steve
Please correct me if I've missed or misinterpreted postings
that wanted more change than indicated above.
I've seen folks interested in draft standard and some not.
As to that, my imperfect understanding of DS is that an
RFC needs to be 6 months old before DS is possible. So isn't
it the case that on the day that rfcNNNN (being 4871bis) is
published that it may as well be PS? If so, then I can't see
why anyone would object to interested folks then generating
the implementation reports required for DS (and I expect
that that'd be easier than with most RFCs given the wide
deployment of DKIM).
If so, then it may be that we do have consensus to produce
a 4871bis that rolls up the errata and makes editorial
clarifications that garner consensus along the way but
no more.
Does that sound about right?
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
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