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 wo
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:38 PM, John Levine 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 discussion in the DK
> 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 s
>> 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 gue
