This version consolidates all of the minor corrections submitted to date, as
well as the more substantive things that appeared to have consensus.
It did not include the suggestion to add a few points about MUA improvements
that would help in the area of DKIM deployment and MLMs. I'd like to revisit
the idea of adding a paragraph or two about this in an informative appendix.
Do the participants feel this would be a bad or dangerous idea? The main point
would be to lobby MUA developers to begin showing the identity authenticated by
DKIM (the AUID or the SDID or both), as Daniel suggested. I think this is
probably something we'd like to see in general and this is as good a place as
any to say so.
I also did not convert the status from Informational to BCP, and carefully
avoided the standard IETF normative words. There appears to be some dissent
about the sum and substance of this document if it were to move to the stronger
level. My perception of the rough consensus is that we do want to make some
statements about the issues discussed in the draft. However, the only truly
normative thing upon which we appear to agree is that MLMs should sign their
mail. I would rather we produce this more complete document at a lower status
than a one-paragraph BCP saying only that.
Feedback welcome.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html