Re: [ietf-dkim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-10.txt> (DKIM And Mailing Lists) to BCP

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

>> As chair, I can say that consensus was to make this normative, not
>> experimental.
>
> With the best will in the world, I was there, and I saw no such consensus.

We discussed it live at IETF 80, and I posted the following minutes to
the mailing list on 28 March:

3. Discussion of mailinglists document:
Murray listed some questions he has...
   1. Should we include an appendix discussing what we see as useful
changes to MUAs?
      a: No; out of scope.  Perhaps an MUA BCP done at another time.
   2. Should this be Informational or BCP?
      a: BCP, making it clear when we're insufficiently certain about something.
         Last Call will sort out any objections.
   3. Should we remove discussion about dealing with broken DKIM
implementations?
      a: No.
   4. Should we put advice in about what header fields re-signing MLMs
should sign?
      a: No.
   5. Should explicitly reference ESPs?  They're different from MLMs.
      a: No.
   6. Should we change advice about subdomains, creating "streams"?
      a: No.

That reflects strong consensus in the room in Prague, and there was no
objection on the mailing list after the minutes were posted.

Barry
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html