Re: Last Call: 'DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dkim-base)

[Pekka Savola <pekkas at netcore.fi>]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, Eric Allman wrote:
> Thanks for your good comments, which I will try to answer as best as I can.
>
> Advice from our AD and WG Chairs was that in Last Call the point is not to 
> continue Working Group deliberations, but to (a) find minor wording issues, 
> and (b) find show stoppers.  In several cases you have made some good 
> suggestions, but since they fall in the grey area between trivial and 
> critical we are going to have to side-step them for now.  We apologize for 
> this, and wish we had gotten them before we went into Last Call, but we are 
> also trying to get the document out sooner rather than later, and no project 
> ever gets to the point where all parties consider it perfect.

I do not believe this is an appropriate way to handle IETF LC 
comments.  This approach could be understandable for issues which have 
already been discussed at the WG (and no significant new perspective 
is brought up in the IETF LC). A pointer to an issue tracker (if any) 
might help if the issues have already been discussed..

> RFC 2119 does not require that conditions indicated by MUST, SHOULD, etc. be 
> detectable or enforceable by the receiver.

Unfortunately, it doesn't, but the specifications are still required 
to be of sufficient clarity, see e.g., draft-iesg-discuss-criteria 
section 3.1.  A MUST or SHOULD statement which is not implementable 
may fail that test.

At least right now, I don't see the point in responding to the rest of 
the response.

--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf