Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] ADSP Informative Note on parent domain signing

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 11:45:24 -0400

OK... there hasn't been anything more on this thread for a week, so
it's time to tally.  And I'm afraid the tally tells us little more
than what we had:

Include the informative note:  3
Do not include it: 4
No opinion: 5

This doesn't make for rough consensus in any direction.

I'm inclined, as chair, to say that, lacking rough consensus to
include it, we should not include it.  That might go against the
"least harm" approach... but I think it's the most reasonable choice
at this point.

I'll give the three who voted to include (Jim, Scott, and Al), a final
comment.  If you can't convince more people that it would be actively
harmful not to have such an informative note, I think we have to move
ahead with the draft without it.

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

---

From: Al Iverson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 11:05:31 -0500

> ahead with the draft without it.

I'm fine with that. I don't have a lot of insight to add here, and I
agree with your thought with how to proceed lacking consensus.

Best,
Al Iverson

-- 
Al Iverson on Spam and Deliverability, see http://www.spamresource.com
News, stats, info, and commentary on blacklists: http://www.dnsbl.com
My personal website: http://www.aliverson.com   --   Chicago, IL, USA

---

From: Jim Fenton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 May 2009 11:24:37 -0700

> ahead with the draft without it.

This is just an informative note, after all, so it's not essential to
the spec.  I'm fine with proceeding without it, given this outcome.

Thanks for the consensus check and the ruling.

-Jim