The first thing is that it's out of scope to address changes to things
that were in RFC 4871, which was approved by the working group, the
community, and the IESG in 2007, if it's simply a question of one or
two people not liking those things so much -- even if one or two of
those people now sit on the IESG. The working group has really made
an effort to avoid casual changes, and I support that, as chair and
document shepherd.
RFC 4871 is full of gratuitous and often wrong advice on everything from
APIs to MUA design to key management. 4871bis got rid of some of it, but
there's still a lot left. If Pete can force us to strip out more of the
gratuitous stuff and stick to telling people how to do reliably
interoperable signing and verification, the actual standards part of the
standard, he'll be doing everyone a favor in the long run.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html