[ietf-dkim] ISSUE: dkim-overview -- normative statements

[Paul Hoffman]

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 
>requirements.
>
>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 
>exemplars.
>

I think it would be fine to make this a standards-track document with 
normative language.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Domain Assurance Council