Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] I-D.kucherawy-dkim-reporting

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 20:10:14 +0200

Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

> In any case, thanks so much for being encouraging rather than 
> taking the easy passive-aggressive and condescending way out.

Admittedly I was generally frustrated, and abused your draft to
whine.  OTOH if you somehow missed those months to come to the
ADSP decision, and also propose to discuss parent domain again,
that's also not very encouraging.

 Frank 

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

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:43:49 +0100

Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> ADSP isn't a published draft yet.  When it publishes, I'll update.

It's Monday.  Monday is perfect for nit-picking, since it's potential for 
ruining an entire week is the best:

    One should not say "published" for a draft, but if one were to say it, in 
fact an ADSP draft is indeed published.

    But it has not been declared a working group document.

    However the working group consensus has already been declared for the term 
"ADSP" so citing it in another document could go either way.

That's almost three nits, and I only started out intending one.

No need to thank me.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Tony Finch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:33:52 +0100

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> > it has a reference to RFC 1894 obsoleted by RFC 3464 *five* years ago,
>
> Interesting then that IDNits doesn't mention that at all, nor does
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1894.txt show it as obsolete.

RFCs are never modified after publication. The RFC index says:

1894 An Extensible Message Format for Delivery Status Notifications.
     K. Moore, G. Vaudreuil. January 1996. (Format: TXT=77462 bytes)
     (Obsoleted by RFC3464) (Updated by RFC2852) (Status: PROPOSED
     STANDARD)

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <[email-masked]>  http://dotat.at/
SHANNON: NORTHWEST 3 OR 4 BACKING SOUTHWEST 5 TO 7. MODERATE BECOMING ROUGH.
RAIN OR SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:03:33 -0700 (PDT)

> Sometimes I wonder what the goal here is.

Why not ask me?

> Looking into http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-dkim-reporting 
> it reinvents RFC 3834 without referencing it,

How?  RFC3834 is a series of recommendations for a set of related 
scenarios, not a specific application.  It would make a great entry for my 
References section though.

> and still talks about ASP instead of ADSP.

> Using [FWS] in DNS records is also broken by design, unless the goal is 
> "experimental" havoc.

I don't mind changing it to *WSP as the SSP draft has it if that's better.

In any case, thanks so much for being encouraging rather than taking the 
easy passive-aggressive and condescending way out.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html