I concur with the plan to advance DKIM to draft standard. It's not
clear to me as a matter of IETF politics whether we can advance
4871+5672 as a unit to draft standard, or if it's mandatory to make
another pass and turn them into one document. I'd rather avoid that
pass if at all possible since the worms in this particular can are
unusually wriggly.
Re the ADSP data collection, I'd like to add a third option to move it
to Historic if ADSP turns out to be as useful as I think, but I
realize this is unlikely to be a popular suggestion.
Re the other stuff, it's way too early to make changes. At some point
it might be useful to update the usage guide on hot button issues like
signing for your customers and DKIM vs. mailing lists, but we need
actual experience first. At this point it's just guessing to argue
whether there are in fact any problems that the current DKIM cannot
solve that a modified version could.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html