On 05/04/2011 08:51 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
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.
My sense is that what Rolf is asking at its base is that the there is
a conflict between the two documents and it's not clear why they
exist, and which should be believed. If 4686 is inconsistent, then
we should make a case for why it's wrong and document that. It
may be process-wise "informational", but it served at the time as
a guiding document for the creation of 4871, and had working
group consensus at a time of extremely high scrutiny. We do not
have anywhere close to that level of scrutiny now, and as such
any changes made should be viewed with a very high level of
caution and scepticism.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html