Re: [ietf-dkim] Intended status (was: Re: [dmarc-ietf] a slightly less kludge alternative to draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rcpts)

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 1:11 AM, Rolf E. Sonneveld <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi, Murray,
>
> On 16-11-16 02:45, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
>> There's been a lot of great feedback here.  I just cranked out an update
>> based on the discussion so far:
>>
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-kucherawy-dkim-rcpts-01
>>
>> I forgot to update the title of Section 3, but other than that I think I
>> captured what's been discussed.  Please let me know what I've missed.
>>
>
> the intended status field is empty, but do you have some intended status
> in mind or not yet?


All of the versions I can see at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-dkim-rcpts/ show
"Standards Track" as the Intended Status field, meaning it would get
"Proposed Standard" on publication.  I think if we get more than one
operator interested in trying this, then that's the right thing.  If we get
no commitment, "Experimental" is fine, if we go ahead with it at all.

If you're talking about the "Intended RFC Status" in the datatracker, which
still says "(None)", that's not set by the document author; it's set by the
working group chair, sponsoring Area Director, or Independent Submission
editor once it formally enters one of the two possible processing streams.

-MSK

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