> -----Original Message----- > From: McDowell, Brett [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 7:17 AM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] In the spirit of moving forward... > > 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).
I wasn't saying it's ready for a WGLC yet; as I said there's lots of feedback to incorporate still. I just wanted to gauge whether or not there's a general feeling that moving forward with it (including evolving it) is a reasonable path from here. But since you brought up those points, do you have any specific changes you'd like to propose? _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
