Is it too much to insist that anything we do here be reflected in the
_charter_
so that there is no misunderstanding? As it stands, there is nothing in our
charter that says anything about any of this.
Mike
Stephen Farrell wrote:
> So let me try summarise and ask a question.
>
> I don't think I've seen anyone who wants to do more than
> just roll up the existing errata into a bis document, possibly
> with some editorial changes I guess. I've not seen anyone
> suggest that we add features or remove a raft of features
> or make other substantial changes.
>
> Please correct me if I've missed or misinterpreted postings
> that wanted more change than indicated above.
>
> I've seen folks interested in draft standard and some not.
> As to that, my imperfect understanding of DS is that an
> RFC needs to be 6 months old before DS is possible. So isn't
> it the case that on the day that rfcNNNN (being 4871bis) is
> published that it may as well be PS? If so, then I can't see
> why anyone would object to interested folks then generating
> the implementation reports required for DS (and I expect
> that that'd be easier than with most RFCs given the wide
> deployment of DKIM).
>
> If so, then it may be that we do have consensus to produce
> a 4871bis that rolls up the errata and makes editorial
> clarifications that garner consensus along the way but
> no more.
>
> Does that sound about right?
>
> Stephen.
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
