Scott Kitterman wrote:
Looking at 6.5, and then looking back at 6.4 (Determine the Header Fields to
Sign), it seems to me that the "INFORMATIVE OPERATIONS NOTE" in 6.4 attempts
to describe the considerations that are normatively described in 6.5. It's
redundant and ought to be deleted. Given what's in 6.5 now, it's just a
potential source of confusion.
I see your point.
I think the note saying about "not-obvious" is generally true, but we
do have a pretty strong mail system insight to have a top DKIM strategy.
For me, dependent of DKIM, the end game in a heterogeneous mail
network was always about WYSIWYG and the ability to reply back, so:
- end to end persistency expectation, i.e. WYSIWYG, and
- transport (network controls) persistency expectation.
The note does reflect this in show many words and in mixed strategies,
but there should be one top DKIM strategy that offers the best
technical and DKIM results.
If that can be stated in 6.5, I agree the 6.4 note would become redundant.
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html