I've finally got time again to take part in this discussion, so here we go,
top-to-bottom. Sorry for the mail flood this implies.
Tony Hansen wrote:
There should be an indication somewhere that this header is on the
standards track.
It's my understanding that a standards track proposal is only appropriate for
protocols whose implementation/interpretation will span administrative
boundaries. Since that's clearly not true for something that is added by a
receiver/verifier for consumption by a message recipient, the informational
track seemed more appropriate. LMTP was cited to me as an example.
I've gone round and round in my mind with what to do with this paragraph
in Section 1:
At the time of publication of this draft, only [AUTH] is a published
sender authentication standard. However, several more are in the
Internet Draft stage. As various methods emerge, it is necessary to
prepare their appearance and encourage convergence in the area of
interfacing these filters to MUAs.
It's good sales pitch, but I don't think it should really belong in the
final version of the RFC. I suggest that it be marked as a "Note (to be
removed on publication)". Also, change "prepare their" to "prepare for
their".
Both done.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html