Hello Pete,
To be clear about where I stand: in my view this needs no change to the
BCP and I am not proposing one. If other participants think otherwise I
will read what they put forward on its merits.
I was answering a request for clarification from William about a section
of my individual draft. I read his interest as being in normative text
on re-originating intermediaries. If that is right, the proposal is his
to make and he is the one to say what text and where.
Regards
Vittorio
Il 2026-10-11 22:04 Pete Resnick ha scritto:
Just on the process point:
On 11 Oct 2026, at 13:43, Vittorio wrote:
on where that language belongs I will leave the judgement to the
working group. My draft is an individual submission and it makes the
argument in the place available to it. Whether the BCP should carry an
equivalent statement, and in what terms, is a question for the people
editing it.
You and William are members of the WG. Nothing is going to happen
without a specific proposal. If you two think that there is text from
your draft (or something close to it) that should be added to the BCP,
please make a specific proposal about what to put in, and where. You
can't leave it to other participants or the document editors to divine
what part of your draft (which they may not be following) belongs in
some unspecified part of the BCP. Please make a specific proposal with
specific edits.
pr
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
