At 23:27 09-08-10, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
The whole point of this draft is to talk about these things about
which the general public has little understanding. There's a lot of
collective subconscious out there that has equated "bad signature"
to "bad message", and perhaps reasonably so. I think it's better to
discuss it in this quasi-BCP than pretend it's not there and expect
everyone to figure it out.
Agreed.
I think that more experience is needed before the working group
delves into a BCP. There isn't any RFC 2119 terminology in
draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-02. Even if it had such language, that
doesn't make it a BCP.
At 23:53 09-08-10, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Some time ago we discussed this and the consensus seemed to be (to
me, at least) to produce an Informational document on our first pass
through this process with an eye towards doing a BCP (in the formal
IETF sense) afterwards. I think some people have been calling this
a BCP because it generally espouses what we think of as best
practices, but that term has some special status meanings in the
IETF so perhaps that caused some confusion.
Yes.
If we have changed our consensus and want to take a run at a full
BCP document, I'll happily go through and start using RFC2119
language. Finding ways to avoid using those magic words, even in
all-lowercase, can be a little time-consuming.
Yes. The Abstract Section already says:
"As the industry has now gained some deployment experience, the goal
for this document is to explore the use of DKIM for scenarios that
include intermediaries, such as Mailing List Managers (MLMs)."
Naturally I'm fine citing RFC5863 and ensuring this document's
definitions match the ones found there, but do we really want to
cite a Wikipedia article?
No. It's not a good reference unless we are want to track perceived
consensus in real-time.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html