[ietf-dkim] Lean vs. Fat 'requirements'
mike at mtcc.com
Thu Aug 10 07:19:49 PDT 2006
Dave Crocker wrote:
>Michael Thomas wrote:
>> so I erred on less controversy.
>Some of us believe, rather strongly, that this is a particularly important
>"bias" to the development of the requirements list. It occurs, to me, however,
>that it might not be clear whether there is working group consensus on it.
>I would be interested in seeing statements of preference for, or against, having
>the requirements be minimalist, and include only those items for which there is
>clear rough consensus to include.
>If an item engenders real wg controversy, it is *not* included.
That mostly works for me. What I've tried to do is give some of the
ones that I see some but not an overwhelming consensus a "provisional"
status in the draft. I think that in order to advance we probably should
take each one of them and determine whether there is *real* consensus
with a real constiency lest it gets removed in the final version.
But yes, less is better here.
More information about the ietf-dkim