As an alternative, does it make sense to get more specific and spell
out the Authentication-Results header as much as is needed and then
when the real Authentication-Results spec comes along can it say
"supersedes the definition in DKIM" or some such?
We could even go so far as to spell out that anticipation if it helps.
1. Interim never is.
2. Trying to specify an auth-res header ensures that we get enmeshed in that as
a new topic, prior to getting the base spec out the door.
3. Trying to anticipate how an independent bit of work will complete usually
leads to being wrong and losing synchrony with that work.
3. There is nothing in the base service that requires that we specify a
standardized mechanism for communicating authentication results to some outside
entity.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html