On 20/May/11 15:33, John Levine wrote:
of what paths are likely to downcode a message and what paths aren't,
so I would prefer not to purport to offer advice about it.
Actually, I kinda prefer to leave it in. It seems to me assume a
downgrade will happen unless you're certain it won't, and
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:38 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
I'd suggest publishing it as Informational or Experimental rather than
BCP.
As DKIM chair, I'd like to reply to this and other messages in this
thread that discuss the status of the subject document:
There was extensive
As chair, I can say that consensus was to make this normative, not
experimental.
With the best will in the world, I was there, and I saw no such consensus.
The closest thing I can find in a quick search of the archive is this
note, which says that the group agreed on one thing (that lists
As chair, I can say that consensus was to make this normative, not
experimental.
With the best will in the world, I was there, and I saw no such consensus.
We discussed it live at IETF 80, and I posted the following minutes to
the mailing list on 28 March:
3. Discussion of mailinglists
2. Should this be Informational or BCP?
a: BCP, making it clear when we're insufficiently certain about
something.
Last Call will sort out any objections.
Well, I couldn't afford to go, so I can't say you're wrong, and I don't
know why I didn't see that on the list.
I guess
