-----Original Message-----
From: barryleiba(_dot_)mailing(_dot_)lists(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
[mailto:barryleiba(_dot_)mailing(_dot_)lists(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com] On Behalf
Of Barry Leiba
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 11:25 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Updating Section 6.5: Recommended Signature
Content
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?
With the back-reference, I guess I feel better about it. Without it, in my
head it's akin to repeating normative assertions in different places, begging
for divergence.
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.
If consensus concurs with that view, then I would indeed like to add something
like "any header field that conveys important meta-information about the
message, such as authentication information from a relay (e.g., [RFC5451])".
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html