Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Folks, > > Mark has written a draft [1] that documents the pre-WG state of > domainkeys. This is to be discussed on the next IESG telechat, > with the goal being for it to be published as an historic RFC.
What is the reason for Historic, rather than Informational? I am prety sure that historic has never been applied to a specification that was not previously an IETF standard. The usual means of labeling an RFC that specifies a popular, proprietary protocol is Informational. > The question: is it better for this document to be published as an > historic RFC "now" or at the same time as the standards track DKIM > base RFC is published? (Where all timings here are modulo the RFC > editor's queuing discipline.) same time. we have enough confusion in the market, as it is. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
