Whether or not this document is normative vs. informative is up to the WG
really. I’d be fine with either, though there’s the argument that we should
start with something informational (non-normative) first and then upgrade it to
BCP (normative) later.
I’d argue that the practices for forwarding fall under the aliasing-style MLMs
as the mechanism is identical. Perhaps we could say so here.
From: Franck Martin [mailto:franck(_at_)genius(_dot_)com]
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 1:43 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Lists "BCP" draft available
This looks good. Ok to become a WG document
Pity we may need a separate document for "forwarding" or can this notion be
included in the current document?
Also can parts be more normative than informational? ie what a MLM MUST do when
supporting DKIM.
________________________________
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk(_at_)cloudmark(_dot_)com>
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Sent: Monday, 10 May, 2010 11:01:54 AM
Subject: [ietf-dkim] Lists "BCP" draft available
I’ve posted an individual submission draft that attempts to capture some of the
consensus and some appropriate guidance around the use of DKIM in the context
of mailing lists. I don’t propose that it’s final at all, but merely an anchor
point for further discussion.
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-dkim-lists/
Would the WG like to bring it in and make it a WG document? If so, I volunteer
to act as editor.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
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