I'm going to cut off this thread of discussion. The changes here were
proposed as a result of a long conversation that made it clear that
there was disagreement, even among the active participants here, as to
what RFC 4871 really meant. It's likely that if *we* disagree, others
reading the spec on their own will have trouble understanding what it
means.
There is consensus -- not unanimous agreement, but rough consensus --
in the working group that the document we're processing is a
reasonable effort at clarifying things for implementors who don't have
the benefit of ready access to discuss things with the original
authors/editors. Because we've been here and moved on, the topic of
whether we need to make changes to the definitions at this point... is
off the table.
Let's save that energy for the RFC4871bis effort.
Barry (as chair)
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html