On 05/10/10 23:54, Julian Mehnle wrote:
Recommending that one more "From" be added to h= (and hashed)
than From headers are initially placed in the message should be enough.
There is no need to change the semantics of the spec.
Assuming that "recommending" above maps to a (putative)
"MUST/SHOULD" statement in 4871bis, I'd be interested in
opinions as to whether such a change might slow progress
to draft standard, or be detrimental to current deployments.
One could argue that this'd be a material change to the
protocol that is not a deletion, and hence that deployed
code would have to change to comply, which, to me, goes
against at least the spirit of the PS->DS transition.
(Which is the point of the current exercise.)
So in terms of meeting our chartered goals, this specific
addition might have undesirable side effects were it to
represent the WG's opinion. (Much as the chairs love you
all, starting right in on a 4871ter is not attractive:-)
Stephen.
PS: Note that I'm saying nothing about whether or not this
issue should be mentioned in 4871bis.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html