Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
So far I'm under the impression that the author is not very
interested to discuss it.
Your impression is quite in error.
Maybe I just don't get the idea of its "no modifications and
no derivative work" clause.
It didn't quite take off 10 months ago in...
<http://news.gmane.org/group/gmane.ietf.mxcomp/thread=4832>
...and it immediately moved on to a general ABNF debate in...
<http://news.gmane.org/group/gmane.ietf.announce/thread=6384>
I also received Bruce's "review" of it, but haven't yet
completed my response.
Yes, that Bruce (L), not Phil's Bruce (S).
I'm also not on ietf-rfc822, so if there's been further
discussion of it there, I've missed all of it.
My very first reply was still somewhat related to your draft,
but then it went on to general stuff, trace header fields,
shuffled header fields, "trust me" header fields, ABNF, etc.,
the usual topics of the 822 list.
If it's very relevant for DKIM it should be added to the list
of MASS input documents. For SPF we were forced to stick to
the clumsy SPF-Received:, because Authentication-Results: was
not ready for prime time (aka Bruce's famous reviews). Bye