On 08/30/2010 11:03 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> I’d like some help tackling the next version of the MLM draft. People
> seem to have varying ideas about what should be removed and perhaps
> appear in other documents now. I need some consensus on a direction in
> which to proceed.
>
> So can I please get some +1s/-1s on each of the following:
>
> (1) Split the document into three documents: A DKIM MLM BCP that
> discusses signing and verifying in the context of MLMs with no value-add
> items addressed, a DKIM MLM Informational that discusses possible
> value-add enhancements to MLMs in the DKIM world, and a non-WG BCP about
> mailing lists irrespective of DKIM (Dave’s proposal);
-1. Multiple documents just confuse issues, and are a giant pain to
deal with.
> (2) Tear out everything having to do with making author signatures
> survive list relaying, dropping all that text altogether, and instead
> pointing people at S/MIME or PGP (John’s proposal);
-1. S/MIME and PGP aren't even vaguely related to DKIM, and we're not in
any position to know whether S/MIME or PGP are better. We should just
state the facts and leave it that.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
