JD,
My own view is that it's problematic to refer to what isn't, what is underway,
or what might be. It invites extraneous hassles, when there is no need. The
one
exception might be to constrain scope, such as is done in the list at the end
of
1.1.
Further, I think the agreement in the working group was to add more discussion
about signing practices when they are approved by the IESG.
So I guess my question to you is: Why? What is the important benefit in
adding
this "nothing has been done yet" statement. (Well, ok, maybe my choice of
descriptive words is a bit strong, but at least there's no doubt about why I
think it shouldn't be added...)
d/
J D Falk wrote:
Suggested addition to third paragraph of section 2.2:
An organization might build upon its use of DKIM by publishing
information about its Signing Practices (SP). This could permit
detecting some messages that purport to be associated with a domain,
but which are not. As such, an SP can cause the trust assessment to
be reduced, or leave it unchanged. [As of the date of publication of
this document, a standard method for publishing these Signing
Practices had not yet been finalized.]
--
J.D. Falk
Receiver Products
Return Path
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html