-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 7:06 AM
To: DKIM IETF WG
Subject: [ietf-dkim] Splitting the mailing list document?
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
[...]
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.
Ah, the deafening silence...
After thinking about it for a while, I believe it would be fine to fork the
document as described. Given the working group's scope and charter, and in the
absence of any objection, I propose the following:
1) The current document covers what you have as (a) above with no change to
name, and an intended status change to BCP.
2) The parts of the current document suggesting possible enhancements become a
new WG document with a similar name. The status of this document would be
Informational.
3) A general BCP for lists irrespective of DKIM is probably something the email
world should have. I'd be fine with this being either Informational or BCP
status. I would take this up as an individual submission and probably move it
through the APPS area, but I would really like to hear from some of the MLM
maintainers, past and present, on this list willing to help with that work
before I agree to add it to my queue.
None of this will happen before the start of September in any case, but I
thought I should finally reply to this.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html