Subject: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: some process-problematic references in base

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 09:45:13 +0000

Dunno what the right thing to do here is, but we need to
figure it out sometime. No rush though.

S.

#1 the "SHOULD search for" the putative DKK RR "first" creates a problematic
forward reference for this document - section 3.6.2.2. I understand that this
is a kind of future proofing, but it may delay RFCdom significantly. Would the
WG be better off getting base out as an RFC and then revising whenever the RR
document is done (or else add this SHOULD to that document).

#2 [ID-AUTH-RES] is not on our current charter (it specifically requires
a recharter) and so, should not be referenced, since the implication would 
be that we cannot finish the current charter before we recharter which is
a bad thing. Suggest expunging the concept entirely for now.

#3 Is section 6.6 really necessary/useful? Perhaps this would be better
in the overview or else in some separate DKIM-MUA document?
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html