Lisa Dusseault wrote:
A) auth-header to not require any feature advertising or auto-configuration
B) auth-header to normatively RECOMMEND some kind of feature advertising
C) auth-header to normatively REQUIRE some kind of feature advertising
I'm currently between A and B. I'm fine with referencing possible
solutions, but I'm not sure I agree with the need for any normative
language.
Separately, the unspecified feature advertising or auto-conf should be
(choose one or more):
1) IMAP Capabilities advertising
2) E/SMTP capabilities
3) IMAP annotations
4) Something else
5) Nothing
I don't think 3 is relevant here. It specifies a different mechanism
entirely.
1 & 2 are what the draft should mention as experimental possibilities.
4 would include DKIM signing. I'd be fine with adding a SHOULD there.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html