On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:38 PM, John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'd suggest publishing it as Informational or Experimental rather than > BCP. As DKIM chair, I'd like to reply to this and other messages in this thread that discuss the status of the subject document: There was extensive discussion in the DKIM working group about what the status here should be. The charter item covering this is here: 5. Consider issues related to mailing lists, beyond what is already documented. This includes considerations for mailing list software that supports or intends to support DKIM, as well as considerations for DKIM/ADSP deployment in the presence of mailing lists that do not have such support. Include recommendations in the informational documents, or produce a new informational document about mailing-list considerations. Despite that this says "new informational document", the working group has long referred to it as "the mailing list BCP". The language was originally written as informational, and was changed to normative language, and BCP status, after discussion and consensus. Clearly, it was rough consensus, not unanimity. There is, indeed, much in the document that isn't so much "current practice" as "recommended practice". Some of it is our best current recommendation, and that might change over time (as implementations change in general) and experience (as we find what actually works best). Personally, I think what this amounts to is a "proposed standard" for how to deal with maling list managers that have not yet been changed to support DKIM. Whether that is published as BCP or Proposed Standard, it's definitely not "experimenta" so much as "proposed". As chair, I can say that consensus was to make this normative, not experimental. Barry, DKIM working group chair _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf