-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Rolf E.
Sonneveld
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 7:04 AM
To: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Output summary - proposing ODID "Originating Domain
Identity"
Both documents refer to rfc4686, albeit only in the Informative
References section. rfc4871 refers to rfc4686 only in section 8,
rfc4871bis in section 8 as well as in section 1.1.
There are two main fallacies that appear to be behind the arguments of a few
people here:
(1) RFC4686 is gospel. It isn't. Its status is "Informative" which means it
doesn't bind anyone to do anything.
(2) A working group is not entitled to change its mind about something based on
experience. It is.
Since RFC4686 was published, some of the consensus view of how this
does/should/might all work has shifted. There's nothing wrong with that.
If someone wants to undertake the work of publishing an update because it's
seen as important, there are several of us that could assist with procedure,
though it's unlikely to be done by this working group at this point.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html