a and b. c is well outside the scope. Stick with informational for now.
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 10:33 AM
To: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net
Cc: DKIM IETF WG
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Splitting the mailing list document?
So it seems reasonable for folks to discuss this for a few days
and if a consensus is clear we can go from there. Otherwise maybe
we can poll about in next week or so. (Other suggestions welcome,
particularly from Murray as editor.)
S.
On 10/08/10 15:06, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 8/9/2010 11:53 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Since Dave suggests a fissioning of this document into two or more,
I'll hold
off applying his until after that's done and some discussion about
it
has
been had.
I'm a fan of getting the mix and balance of documents right. Extra
documents
are a hassle, but a single document that mixes agendas is too. I
was a
bit
surprised to make the suggestion that this doc get split.
1. Are there different topics? If so, what are they and which
should
be
pursued? The working groups needs to comment on this.
I think I saw 3 different topics, and that there has already
been a
bit of
discussion about this. The topics are:
a. Handling DKIM messages transiting a Mailing List Manager
b. Trust-based enhancements for Mailing List Managers based on
DKIM
c. Best practices for Mailing List Managers
The first is/was the official goal of the current work.
The latter two have emerged. Neither is formally within scope of
the
working
group, although b. is a natural addition. Note, however, that it is
formal
protocol specification work and we need to worry about adoption
first --
who
needs to adopt it and why do we think they will?
c. is not reasonably in scope; I do not see any way to justify it
within
this
working group, in spite of there having been some good discussion.
2. If a split is appropriate, how should the existing content be
divided?
I vote for letting Murray handle this. (You're welcome,
Murray.)
So, the first question is intended to get some working group
consensus,
before
Murray puts in the effort of dividing things up.
d/
_______________________________________________
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