Common examples of fields with addresses and fields with
textual content related to the body are:
o From
-1 with the removal of the original text of:
o From (REQUIRED in all signatures)
The 5322.From header is a fundamental binding requirement in DKIM
signatures.
It is redundant to the first sentence in the text of Section 6.4 which already
says From MUST be signed; there's no reason to repeat it here, especially
since this section is clearly advisory in nature only, and thus there's no
harm in removing it.
Perhaps, but I agree that it would be useful to remind people. Why
not leave it there, with a reference to the normative statement?
I'd actually like to add Authentication-Results because an agent
that wishes to claim that observed authentication meta-data should
become part of the message core certainly should sign such a field,
but that's not worth recycling at Proposed and basically RFC5451
already says that anyway.
...
The issue is that adding things to DKIM now will prevent its progress toward
Draft Standard, which is something we're trying to avoid. Removing things, on
the other hand, doesn't introduce any backward compatibility issues, and so
that's allowed.
I don't think so. This section is not normative -- we've already
*removed* the SHOULD in it, and that's the removal. After that,
anything we add is an idle suggestion, and doesn't affect conformance.
I think we can put anything we want in here, informatively. We can
even be general -- that is, we can say "Authentication-Results [tm]",
or we can say, "any header field that conveys authentication results,"
or some such.
Barry, as participant
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html