Re: Review of: draft-otis-dkim-harmful

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Douglas Otis 
<doug(_dot_)mtview(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:

> Procedurally speaking, what path do you anticipate your draft following?
>
>
> To require messages with invalidly repeated header fields to not return a
> "pass" for DKIM signature validation.
That's a technical response.  What I asked was a procedural question.