> -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Thomas [mailto:m...@mtcc.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 9:03 AM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: Rolf E. Sonneveld; dcroc...@bbiw.net; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Output summary - proposing ODID "Originating Domain > Identity" > > 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.
My read is that Rolf is objecting to RFC4871bis on the grounds that it conflicts with RFC4686. (He can and should correct me if I'm wrong.) If his concerns would be satisfied by a change (perhaps an appendix?) that simply acknowledges some evolution in thinking based on experience since RFC4686 was published, I imagine that wouldn't meet with much resistance. But if the point is to use RFC4686 to compel some change in something trying to get to DS (or even PS), that's a non-starter. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
