It was my understanding that the MLM BCP was intended to inform MLM operators of what they should do with DKIM-signed mail. Since that is the critical question, I would assert we need rough consensus on the answer to that question before issuing a WGLC on the document. I do not believe we have rough consensus on the answer to that question, i.e. reject vs. discard vs. bounce nor strip-and-sign, change from: and sign, or just simply re-sign as-is nor what to do about/with A-R. Correct me if I'm wrong about that, but I saw some of those issues raised just this week (and we were debating these same issues in May).
On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:24 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > There was very little response to my last straw poll about where we go with > the MLM draft next. It certainly wasn't enough to be able to claim "rough > consensus" from a group this size. > > I have some feedback on the actual text from Jeff, Daniel and Dave to > incorporate, and I haven't forgotten that. But there remains the issue of > whether or not to split it into two or three documents covering specific > topics (a non-DKIM MLM BCP, a DKIM-specific MLM BCP, and a DKIM value-add for > MLMs informational), and whether or not to just drop the whole affair because > there's not enough we can really say anyway. > > Given my druthers I'd like to proceed with it the way it is since absent > rough consensus to change course, the right thing to do seems to be to press > on. (After thinking about that a bit, I have to admit that it's also the > most attractive to me since it's the least amount of work...) > > Is anybody going to be really upset if I go that route and then work toward a > WGLC later this year? > > -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
