On May 8, 2009, at 11:38 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > So let me try summarise and ask a question. > > I don't think I've seen anyone who wants to do more than > just roll up the existing errata into a bis document, possibly > with some editorial changes I guess. I've not seen anyone > suggest that we add features or remove a raft of features > or make other substantial changes.
I suggest we remove some of the features that complicate deployment and/or add no value, and I think a -bis draft is a reasonable point in the process to do so. Cheers. Steve > > > Please correct me if I've missed or misinterpreted postings > that wanted more change than indicated above. > > I've seen folks interested in draft standard and some not. > As to that, my imperfect understanding of DS is that an > RFC needs to be 6 months old before DS is possible. So isn't > it the case that on the day that rfcNNNN (being 4871bis) is > published that it may as well be PS? If so, then I can't see > why anyone would object to interested folks then generating > the implementation reports required for DS (and I expect > that that'd be easier than with most RFCs given the wide > deployment of DKIM). > > If so, then it may be that we do have consensus to produce > a 4871bis that rolls up the errata and makes editorial > clarifications that garner consensus along the way but > no more. > > Does that sound about right? > > Stephen. > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
