>> As chair, I can say that consensus was to make this normative, not
>> experimental.
>
> With the best will in the world, I was there, and I saw no such consensus.
We discussed it live at IETF 80, and I posted the following minutes to
the mailing list on 28 March:
3. Discussion of mailinglists document:
Murray listed some questions he has...
1. Should we include an appendix discussing what we see as useful
changes to MUAs?
a: No; out of scope. Perhaps an MUA BCP done at another time.
2. Should this be Informational or BCP?
a: BCP, making it clear when we're insufficiently certain about something.
Last Call will sort out any objections.
3. Should we remove discussion about dealing with broken DKIM
implementations?
a: No.
4. Should we put advice in about what header fields re-signing MLMs
should sign?
a: No.
5. Should explicitly reference ESPs? They're different from MLMs.
a: No.
6. Should we change advice about subdomains, creating "streams"?
a: No.
That reflects strong consensus in the room in Prague, and there was no
objection on the mailing list after the minutes were posted.
Barry
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf