a and b. c is well outside the scope. Stick with informational for now. > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:ietf-dkim- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 10:33 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: DKIM IETF WG > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Splitting the mailing list document? > > > So it seems reasonable for folks to discuss this for a few days > and if a consensus is clear we can go from there. Otherwise maybe > we can poll about in next week or so. (Other suggestions welcome, > particularly from Murray as editor.) > > S. > > On 10/08/10 15:06, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > > > > On 8/9/2010 11:53 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >> Since Dave suggests a fissioning of this document into two or more, > I'll hold > >> off applying his until after that's done and some discussion about it > has > >> been had. > > > > > > I'm a fan of getting the mix and balance of documents right. Extra > documents > > are a hassle, but a single document that mixes agendas is too. I was a > bit > > surprised to make the suggestion that this doc get split. > > > > 1. Are there different topics? If so, what are they and which should > be > > pursued? The working groups needs to comment on this. > > > > I think I saw 3 different topics, and that there has already been a > bit of > > discussion about this. The topics are: > > > > a. Handling DKIM messages transiting a Mailing List Manager > > > > b. Trust-based enhancements for Mailing List Managers based on > DKIM > > > > c. Best practices for Mailing List Managers > > > > The first is/was the official goal of the current work. > > > > The latter two have emerged. Neither is formally within scope of the > working > > group, although b. is a natural addition. Note, however, that it is > formal > > protocol specification work and we need to worry about adoption first -- > who > > needs to adopt it and why do we think they will? > > > > c. is not reasonably in scope; I do not see any way to justify it within > this > > working group, in spite of there having been some good discussion. > > > > > > 2. If a split is appropriate, how should the existing content be > divided? > > > > I vote for letting Murray handle this. (You're welcome, Murray.) > > > > So, the first question is intended to get some working group consensus, > before > > Murray puts in the effort of dividing things up. > > > > d/ > _______________________________________________ > 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
