Pasi(_dot_)Eronen(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com wrote:
Jim Fenton wrote:
Dave has proposed a change to the rfc4871-errata draft in response to a
concern from the IESG. Can you clarify what concern the IESG has this
is attempting to address? I'll repeat my original question below since
you may have missed it.
It's attempting to address Cullen's comment (about this being
competely incomprehensible to both him and three DKIM implementors he
asked) *and* comments from several other ADs (voiced during the IESG
telechat) that were similar to Cullen's (it's very hard to tell what
is being changed by this document, or who would be impacted by these
changes and should read the document).
Currently, Section 1 does attempt to briefly summarize the change,
explain why it's done and describe the consequences, but after
re-reading it now, I think these comments have some merit, and
slightly longer explanation would be very helpful to readers who
didn't participate in the DKIM WG discussions.
Thanks. I don't share the sense that this additional text clarifies
things much, but I'm perhaps too close to the specification to be a fair
judge of that.
I do have a problem with the last paragraph:
<t>For signers and assessors that have been using the i= tag for
reputation assessment a software change to using the d= tag is
intended.
</t>
and some of the text in the preceding paragraph because it attempts to
do exactly what the WG charter says we won't, specifically:
To prevent this task from becoming unwieldy, several related topics are
considered out of scope for the DKIM working group. These topics
include:
* Reputation and accreditation systems. While we expect these to add
value to what is defined by the DKIM working group, their development
will be separate, and is out of scope for the DKIM working group.
Finally, will you be taking this proposed text to the ADs who had
concerns to determine whether this addresses their concerns? I'm
wondering whether they expected a change to be made, since none of them
raised a DISCUSS on this issue (Cullen abstained).
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html