> My own view is that it's problematic to refer to what isn't, what is > underway, or what might be. It invites extraneous hassles, when there > is no need. The one exception might be to constrain scope, such as is > done in the list at the end of 1.1.
I was trying to read as if I wasn't a regular participant on ietf-dkim -- in which case the obvious question, upon reading about signing practices, is "wait, /how/ do I publish my practices?" > Further, I think the agreement in the working group was to add more > discussion about signing practices when they are approved by the IESG. That works for me. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
