Hello William,
Thanks, and for what it is worth neither point was a position, they were
both matters of fact.
One correction, though. There is no proposal of mine to support. I wrote
to Pete two days ago that in my view this needs no change to the BCP and
that I am not proposing one, and that still holds. What I said about the
general form was not a draft I am carrying. It was a remark on shape, in
case anyone takes the view that this should be written down. My own view
is that it does not need to be.
On visibility, I do not take part in the meetings either. The sessions
are recorded, though, and the recordings are available afterwards. That
is how I follow them, and the same is open to you.
If you are looking for something to contribute that nobody else in this
discussion can, I would suggest it is not more text. You operate the
kind of service this discussion is about. Figures from your own
operation, whichever ones you are able to share, would corroborate the
reasoning rather than leave it to be argued. They would carry further
than any wording.
Regards,
Vittorio Moccia
Il 2026-10-13 18:20 William Weiner ha scritto:
Vittorio,
Both points are well taken and I accept them. The combination is not
specific to re-origination during transition, and narrowing the
sentence to a named category would reintroduce the heuristic dependency
it is meant to remove. I should not have framed it that way.
The general principle as you have stated it - that absence of a prior
chain must not be treated as a negative indicator for an i=1 signature,
whoever produced it - is the right language and I support seeing it in
adopted text.
I was not at the September meeting and do not have full visibility on
where things stand or what you have in mind for this language. Is there
a way I can usefully support your proposal beyond the statement above?
William
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
