[ietf-dkim] Re: Last Call: 'DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dkim-base)

[Stephen Farrell]

Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, Eric Allman wrote:
>> Thanks for your good comments, which I will try to answer as best as I 
>> can.
>>
>> Advice from our AD and WG Chairs was that in Last Call the point is 
>> not to continue Working Group deliberations, but to (a) find minor 
>> wording issues, and (b) find show stoppers.  In several cases you have 
>> made some good suggestions, but since they fall in the grey area 
>> between trivial and critical we are going to have to side-step them 
>> for now.  We apologize for this, and wish we had gotten them before we 
>> went into Last Call, but we are also trying to get the document out 
>> sooner rather than later, and no project ever gets to the point where 
>> all parties consider it perfect.
> 
> I do not believe this is an appropriate way to handle IETF LC comments.  
> This approach could be understandable for issues which have already been 
> discussed at the WG (and no significant new perspective is brought up in 
> the IETF LC). 

I believe that that's what he meant.

 > A pointer to an issue tracker (if any) might help if the
> issues have already been discussed..

The issue tracker for the DKIM WG is at:

https://rt.psg.com/Search/Results.html?Order=ASC&Query=%20Queue%20%3D%20'dkim'&Rows=50&OrderBy=id&Format='%20%20%20%3Cb%3E%3Ca%20href%3D%22%2FTicket%2FDisplay.html%3Fid%3D__id__%22%3E__id__%3C%2Fa%3E%3C%2Fb%3E%2FTITLE%3A%23'%2C%0A'%3Cb%3E%3Ca%20href%3D%22%2FTicket%2FDisplay.html%3Fid%3D__id__%22%3E__Subject__%3C%2Fa%3E%3C%2Fb%3E%2FTITLE%3ASubject'%2C%0A'__Status__'%2C%0A'__QueueName__'%2C%0A'__OwnerName__'%2C%0A'__Priority__'%2C%0A'__NEWLINE__'%2C%0A''%2C%0A'%3Csmall%3E__Requestors__%3C%2Fsmall%3E'%2C%0A'%3Csmall%3E__CreatedRelative__%3C%2Fsmall%3E'%2C%0A'%3Csmall%3E__ToldRelative__%3C%2Fsmall%3E'%2C%0A'%3Csmall%3E__LastUpdatedRelative__%3C%2Fsmall%3E'%2C%0A'%3Csmall%3E__TimeLeft__%3C%2Fsmall%3E'

S.