[email protected] wrote: > Jim Fenton wrote: > > >> Dave has proposed a change to the rfc4871-errata draft in response to a >> concern from the IESG. Can you clarify what concern the IESG has this >> is attempting to address? I'll repeat my original question below since >> you may have missed it. >> > > It's attempting to address Cullen's comment (about this being > competely incomprehensible to both him and three DKIM implementors he > asked) *and* comments from several other ADs (voiced during the IESG > telechat) that were similar to Cullen's (it's very hard to tell what > is being changed by this document, or who would be impacted by these > changes and should read the document). > > Currently, Section 1 does attempt to briefly summarize the change, > explain why it's done and describe the consequences, but after > re-reading it now, I think these comments have some merit, and > slightly longer explanation would be very helpful to readers who > didn't participate in the DKIM WG discussions. >
Thanks. I don't share the sense that this additional text clarifies things much, but I'm perhaps too close to the specification to be a fair judge of that. I do have a problem with the last paragraph: > <t>For signers and assessors that have been using the i= tag for > reputation assessment a software change to using the d= tag is > intended. > </t> > and some of the text in the preceding paragraph because it attempts to do exactly what the WG charter says we won't, specifically: > To prevent this task from becoming unwieldy, several related topics are > considered out of scope for the DKIM working group. These topics > include: > > * Reputation and accreditation systems. While we expect these to add > value to what is defined by the DKIM working group, their development > will be separate, and is out of scope for the DKIM working group. Finally, will you be taking this proposed text to the ADs who had concerns to determine whether this addresses their concerns? I'm wondering whether they expected a change to be made, since none of them raised a DISCUSS on this issue (Cullen abstained). -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
