Sometimes I wonder what the goal here is.
Why not ask me?
Looking into http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-dkim-reporting
it reinvents RFC 3834 without referencing it,
How? RFC3834 is a series of recommendations for a set of related
scenarios, not a specific application. It would make a great entry for my
References section though.
it has a reference to RFC 1894 obsoleted by RFC 3464 *five* years ago,
Interesting then that IDNits doesn't mention that at all, nor does
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1894.txt show it as obsolete.
and still talks about ASP instead of ADSP.
ADSP isn't a published draft yet. When it publishes, I'll update.
Using [FWS] in DNS records is also broken by design, unless the goal is
"experimental" havoc.
I don't mind changing it to *WSP as the SSP draft has it if that's better.
In any case, thanks so much for being encouraging rather than taking the
easy passive-aggressive and condescending way out.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html