[ietf-dkim] In the spirit of moving forward...

[McDowell, Brett]

It was my understanding that the MLM BCP was intended to inform MLM operators of what they should do with DKIM-signed mail.  Since that is the critical question, I would assert we need rough consensus on the answer to that question before issuing a WGLC on the document.  I do not believe we have rough consensus on the answer to that question, i.e. reject vs. discard vs. bounce nor strip-and-sign, change from: and sign, or just simply re-sign as-is nor what to do about/with A-R.  Correct me if I'm wrong about that, but I saw some of those issues raised just this week (and we were debating these same issues in May).


On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:24 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

> There was very little response to my last straw poll about where we go with the MLM draft next.  It certainly wasn't enough to be able to claim "rough consensus" from a group this size.
> 
> I have some feedback on the actual text from Jeff, Daniel and Dave to incorporate, and I haven't forgotten that.  But there remains the issue of whether or not to split it into two or three documents covering specific topics (a non-DKIM MLM BCP, a DKIM-specific MLM BCP, and a DKIM value-add for MLMs informational), and whether or not to just drop the whole affair because there's not enough we can really say anyway.
> 
> Given my druthers I'd like to proceed with it the way it is since absent rough consensus to change course, the right thing to do seems to be to press on.  (After thinking about that a bit, I have to admit that it's also the most attractive to me since it's the least amount of work...)
> 
> Is anybody going to be really upset if I go that route and then work toward a WGLC later this year?
> 
> -MSK
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html