Whether or not this document is normative vs. informative is up to the WG really. I’d be fine with either, though there’s the argument that we should start with something informational (non-normative) first and then upgrade it to BCP (normative) later.
I’d argue that the practices for forwarding fall under the aliasing-style MLMs as the mechanism is identical. Perhaps we could say so here. From: Franck Martin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 1:43 PM To: Murray S. Kucherawy Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Lists "BCP" draft available This looks good. Ok to become a WG document Pity we may need a separate document for "forwarding" or can this notion be included in the current document? Also can parts be more normative than informational? ie what a MLM MUST do when supporting DKIM. ________________________________ From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, 10 May, 2010 11:01:54 AM Subject: [ietf-dkim] Lists "BCP" draft available I’ve posted an individual submission draft that attempts to capture some of the consensus and some appropriate guidance around the use of DKIM in the context of mailing lists. I don’t propose that it’s final at all, but merely an anchor point for further discussion. http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-dkim-lists/ Would the WG like to bring it in and make it a WG document? If so, I volunteer to act as editor. -MSK _______________________________________________ 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
