On Oct 19, 2009, at 10:49 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
Re: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-dkim-reporting
I'd be fine with doing that through this WG, although we have chosen
on several occasions not to take up that draft as a WG item.
Instead, it's now in the proposed charter for the ARF WG.
It's a DKIM thing. If it's going to be done, this group is the group
to do it.
Backdooring it through another group is, at best, not going to be as
effective I don't think.
It's not a question of a "back door". This WG decided some time ago
that it was a good idea, but out of scope. As far as I can tell, that
hasn't changed, so it's still out of scope.
In any case, once it's a Proposed Standard, no one will care what
working group sent it through.
Yup.
But it's going to get better input from this group of people rather than
the ARF group, so whether it's sent through the ARF group, this
group or as an individual submission it'll benefit from input from
the people in this group.
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html