Barry Leiba wrote:
>> If we were to come out with a 4871bis *without* also attempting to move
>> it forward on the standards track, then I agree that we'd be sending a
>> bad message to the industry. But I don't think doing a bis without
>> concurrent advancement is being seriously considered -- I'm certainly
>> advocating moving it to Draft Standard.
>>
>
> In other words, Tony, you're advocating option 1: put the "errata" out
> as an RFC that only makes updates, and reserve the 4871 replacement
> for an attempt to go to Draft Standard.
>
> Option 2 is the one you aren't considering seriously.
>
I just reread your note and I'm completely not getting how it supposedly
leads to draft standard one way or the other. FWIW, multiple normative
documents usually suck from a dev standpoint.
Is draft standard even on the table? I for one am pretty uncomfortable
with a bunch of new normative changes to the sematics of DKIM with
absolutely no interoperability being rolled into a draft standard rev. I
thought that draft standard was mainly about clarification and removing
unused stuff.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
