On 10/26/09 11:02 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
On 10/26/09 9:40 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Specifically, it's clear to me, from WG
conversations and hallway track at MAAWG and elsewhere, that more guidance
is
needed in terms of how DKIM results get interpreted in certain contexts such
as mailing lists and other third-party signing. Even if the output of that
process is "DKIM doesn't tell you anything here", this needs to be more
explicit.
If we don't want to change this document so late in its evolution, that's
fine; I'd be happy if it came out as a BCP document later, either from the
IETF or through a body like MAAWG.
Separate BCP on details on usage: +1
d/
+1, but a forward reference of some sort, like "a separate work is
planned on this topic" wouldn't be out of order.
Agreed.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html