[ietf-dkim] Yahoo's domainkeys as historic: timing
MarkD+dkim at yahoo-inc.com
Sat Jul 15 12:47:16 PDT 2006
> What is the reason for Historic, rather than Informational?
Good question. I had asked for Informational on the basis of the
> I am prety sure that historic has never been applied to a specification that was
> not previously an IETF standard. The usual means of labeling an RFC that
> specifies a popular, proprietary protocol is Informational.
> > The question: is it better for this document to be published as an
> > historic RFC "now" or at the same time as the standards track DKIM
> > base RFC is published? (Where all timings here are modulo the RFC
> > editor's queuing discipline.)
> same time. we have enough confusion in the market, as it is.
As long as the RFC numbers turn out in the right order. Would it
confuse folk if the Information had a bigger number than DKIM?
More information about the ietf-dkim