On Aug 30, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > 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); > > (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); > > (3) Something else (and specify what that might be). > > AND… > > If you support any of the above, please take a few minutes to include some > pointers to what text you want changed/exported and in what way. Actual > diffs would be ideal, but I’ll take point-form commentary as well.
I was about to give a +1 on option 1, but then I started going through draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-02 and trying to figure out which sections would go into each of the new documents. I don't think they can; both the BCP and the Informational would be incomplete without each other, and even if we ignored that they'd still have to each say a lot of the same things about what DKIM is, what lists are, et cetera. Where that falls apart is that most of the current document is non-normative, and I'm leaning towards agreeing with the concept of a second document being normative. So then we could have a document based on the current draft which says, in effect, "here are some ways MLMs break DKIM, and how to avoid them." One of the "how to avoid them" is to make the MLM fully DKIM-compliant, as described in the new normative document. So it's still a split, but a different split. > If you advocate for a general MLM BCP, this will be a non-WG document (it’s > outside of our charter) so I’d love to get some MLM operators and developers > involved. (Maybe this should take place on ietf-822 or maybe on a new non-WG > list; suggestions welcome.) Expressions of interest in that work would be > appreciated. I’ll approach the APPS ADs about a venue. I'll probably participate if it happens, but this feels very likely to get a lot of scope creep from people (perhaps including myself) saying "I wish my MLM had this new feature...." _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
