[ietf-dkim] Whither 4871bis?

[Dave CROCKER]

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.

Yup.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net