It was my understanding that the MLM BCP was intended to inform MLM operators
of what they should do with DKIM-signed mail. Since that is the critical
question, I would assert we need rough consensus on the answer to that question
before issuing a WGLC on the document. I do not believe we have rough
consensus on the answer to that question, i.e. reject vs. discard vs. bounce
nor strip-and-sign, change from: and sign, or just simply re-sign as-is nor
what to do about/with A-R. Correct me if I'm wrong about that, but I saw some
of those issues raised just this week (and we were debating these same issues
in May).
On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:24 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
There was very little response to my last straw poll about where we go with
the MLM draft next. It certainly wasn't enough to be able to claim "rough
consensus" from a group this size.
I have some feedback on the actual text from Jeff, Daniel and Dave to
incorporate, and I haven't forgotten that. But there remains the issue of
whether or not to split it into two or three documents covering specific
topics (a non-DKIM MLM BCP, a DKIM-specific MLM BCP, and a DKIM value-add for
MLMs informational), and whether or not to just drop the whole affair because
there's not enough we can really say anyway.
Given my druthers I'd like to proceed with it the way it is since absent
rough consensus to change course, the right thing to do seems to be to press
on. (After thinking about that a bit, I have to admit that it's also the
most attractive to me since it's the least amount of work...)
Is anybody going to be really upset if I go that route and then work toward a
WGLC later this year?
-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