-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Mark Martinec
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 10:09 AM
To: IETF DKIM WG
Subject: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis-03: issues with 'z=
Copied header fields'
[...]
It would be beneficial if the rfc would at least recommend one order.
It may seem obvious that a top-down order comes naturally, but
considering that a signing algorithm walks through multiple occurrences
of header fields bottom-up, the top-down order may no longer appear
so natural.
[as participant, not co-editor]
I tend to agree, since this way one could definitively detect header field
re-ordering. Even though, via the "h=" semantics, DKIM is fairly resilient to
re-ordering, it might be helpful during diagnostic work to be able to detect
for certain that it has occurred.
[...]
In short, I think the paragraph should just be removed.
Agree here too.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html