[ietf-dkim] ISSUE: dkim-overview -- normative statements
paul.hoffman at domain-assurance.org
Sat Jul 14 13:01:34 PDT 2007
Many thanks to Dave for bringing this up.
At 2:55 PM -0400 7/14/07, Dave Crocker wrote:
>The overview document states that it is seeking Informational RFC
>status. Further, it does not include the usual citation and
>statement that normative vocabulary is used to assert normative
>Nonetheless, the document has quite a number of apparently normative
>statements -- including some in uppercase -- such as:
>. . .
>This seems anomalous and raises a line of questions:
> If the apparently normative statements are actually trying to be
>normative and are reasonable, has the intent of the document changed?
> Even though I've written some portion of the language in the
>document, I have mixed feelings about this issue. Some of the
>apparently-normative statements I like and some I don't -- and I
>don't know which ones I wrote, so that's not the issue.
> Beyond being a summary of DKIM, the document also has become
>something of a higher-level "system specification". As such, some
>of the normative language really pertains to the higher-level
>integration of DKIM into an operational email service and well could
>be extremely useful for guiding design, implementation and
>deployment of DKIM. I think that's a good thing, but I think we
>need to resolve whether this document is making architectural,
>normative specification or whether it is providing tutorial
I think it would be fine to make this a standards-track document with
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Domain Assurance Council
More information about the ietf-dkim