[ietf-dkim] Whither 4871bis?
dhc at dcrocker.net
Thu May 7 22:07:31 PDT 2009
Jim Fenton wrote:
> I'm saying (recognizing this is well outside the scope of the working
> group) that IETF has a problem in that it publishes informational,
> experimental, and historic RFCs and many people outside IETF immediately
> think anything with an RFC number is an "IETF standard". That dilutes
> the value of the IETF standards process and (talking like a marketing
> person) the IETF "brand".
Complaints about this date back at least 15 years. The IETF has managed to
muddle along in spite of the dilution. Small observation: Some people pay
attention to the details of standardization and some don't. Someone who thinks
SPF is a 'standard' is probably not the target of formal standards effort, but
that does not make formal standardization a wasted effort.
> Referring back to my message, I'm advocating that if we do anything, we
> move to Draft Standard, and advocating that we not do another spin at
> Proposed Standard. So are we agreeing?
I hadn't noticed anyone suggesting doing anything that cycled the specification
at Proposed. (The requirement placed on the Errata is different than we're
discussing for the -bis effort.)
Have you heard otherwise?
> But I feel that if we go
> directly to DS, the constraints in that process will help assure that
> doesn't happen.
More information about the ietf-dkim