-----Original Message-----
From: McDowell, Brett [mailto:bmcdowell(_at_)paypal-inc(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 7:17 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] In the spirit of moving forward...
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).
I wasn't saying it's ready for a WGLC yet; as I said there's lots of feedback
to incorporate still. I just wanted to gauge whether or not there's a general
feeling that moving forward with it (including evolving it) is a reasonable
path from here.
But since you brought up those points, do you have any specific changes you'd
like to propose?
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html