Subject: [ietf-dkim] Issue 1561: Development & Deployment guide improperly uses normative language

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:30:20 +0100

Issue description: https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1561

Thread: http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2008q1/009790.html

 From the thread people seem to support the thrust of the comment, i.e.
to reduce/eliminate 2119 language where possible and definitely
avoid it (regardless of case) where its not needed.

Suggest we leave this open for now to let the editors concentrate
on the overview and process the deployment draft issue subsequently.

S.

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

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 09:53:05 -0700

Just to make sure I understand:

    The decision is to remove all hints of being normative?  (Per the recent 
exchange on the IETF mailing list, this won't hinge on case.)

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:01:57 +0100

Not sure it was so strong. I'd interpret the list consensus as
being to remove all normative statements where possible with
some people (but maybe not a consensus) saying that that should
get rid of them all.

If there's something that the editors feel should be normative
in the deployment guide then I guess we'll need to deal with
that based on the next rev, but that should be easier if we
get rid of unnecessary 2119 language.

S.

Dave Crocker wrote:
>    The decision is to remove all hints of being normative?  (Per the 
> recent exchange on the IETF mailing list, this won't hinge on case.)
> 
> 
> d/
> 
> Stephen Farrell wrote:

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 10:14:45 -0700

> get rid of unnecessary 2119 language.

I'm going to be picky about this guidance, only because I know it will bite us 
in the ass later, if there is any issue, so I'd rather get this settled before 
we do serious revising:

   The -Overview is scheduled to be Informational.  It can't have normative text 
and be a working group document at Informational, IMO.  In any event, having it 
contain stray normative text -- absent a very clear mandate for very specific 
areas to specify -- invites confusion rather than clarity.

   And... my current reading of the draft under revision is that it has no 
normative text.  My personal expectation is that it will stay that way...

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:28:32 +0100

Dave Crocker wrote:
> I'm going to be picky about this guidance, only because I know it will 
> bite us in the ass later, if there is any issue, so I'd rather get this 
> settled before we do serious revising:

I don't think you're being picky.

>   The -Overview is scheduled to be Informational.  It can't have 
> normative text and be a working group document at Informational, IMO.  
> In any event, having it contain stray normative text -- absent a very 
> clear mandate for very specific areas to specify -- invites confusion 
> rather than clarity.

I agree. But this issue relates to the deployment guide, not the
overview. If we also have a similar consensus about the deployment
guide, then I think that makes sense but I don't remember us
closing out on that yet (we did specifically for the overview).

>   And... my current reading of the draft under revision is that it has 
> no normative text.  My personal expectation is that it will stay that 
> way...

Again, that's good IMO.

S.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 10:45:30 -0700

> closing out on that yet (we did specifically for the overview).

ahh.  missed the different venue.

and I think there has been almost no discussion about the deployment doc?

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker