On 8/10/2010 9:56 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
The latter two have emerged. Neither is formally within scope of the
working group, although b. is a natural addition. Note, however, that it
is formal protocol specification work and we need to worry about adoption
first - - who needs to adopt it and why do we think they will?
Is that really true? The document is informational and is deliberately
avoiding being normative about anything. Its posture is intended to convey
experience of the industry so far in deploying DKIM and MLMs in tandem, and
provide some suggestions of how that co-operation could be improved.
The comment was about b, which specified additional semantics and a set of
conventions (that is, a protocol) for achieving it. This is the extra
header-field I suggested. The current draft touches this realm, but clearly
it's beyond the scope of your current project. Rather, the current effort is
prompting us to note some related issues.
As for Informational, I'll repeat that the core of your draft -- the part that
is entirely withing the direct scope as I understand it -- contains normative
language. And I think that's appropriate. But that makes it not
Informational,
but probably a BCP.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html