> -----Original Message----- > From: barryleiba.mailing.li...@gmail.com > [mailto:barryleiba.mailing.li...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba > Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 11:25 AM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Updating Section 6.5: Recommended Signature > Content > > > It is redundant to the first sentence in the text of Section 6.4 which > > already > > says From MUST be signed; there's no reason to repeat it here, especially > > since this section is clearly advisory in nature only, and thus there's no > > harm in removing it. > > Perhaps, but I agree that it would be useful to remind people. Why > not leave it there, with a reference to the normative statement?
With the back-reference, I guess I feel better about it. Without it, in my head it's akin to repeating normative assertions in different places, begging for divergence. > > The issue is that adding things to DKIM now will prevent its progress toward > > Draft Standard, which is something we're trying to avoid. Removing things, > > on > > the other hand, doesn't introduce any backward compatibility issues, and so > > that's allowed. > > I don't think so. This section is not normative -- we've already > *removed* the SHOULD in it, and that's the removal. After that, > anything we add is an idle suggestion, and doesn't affect conformance. > I think we can put anything we want in here, informatively. We can > even be general -- that is, we can say "Authentication-Results [tm]", > or we can say, "any header field that conveys authentication results," > or some such. If consensus concurs with that view, then I would indeed like to add something like "any header field that conveys important meta-information about the message, such as authentication information from a relay (e.g., [RFC5451])". _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
