Dave, So I guess what we're talking about is to what "coverage" ADSP gives you. There are three options, not two:
1. The name itself, and nothing more. 2. The name itself plus one level down in the subtree. 3. The name itself plus all levels below it in the subtree. The current draft gives you option 2. As a side effect, it acts like option 3 for names that do not exist, e.g., given the name "a.b.example.com", and assuming that "b.example.com" does not exist, then "a.b.example.com" gets covered as a side effect of the fact that "b.example.com" does not exist. I disagree with your assertion that this hasn't been explicit. As others have pointed out, 5016 section 4.2 already states this. It would make sense to make this explicit in the ADSP draft itself, but that's a matter of wordsmithing, not a question of the desirability and appropriateness of the function in the first place. For the record, I'm in favor of leaving step 2 in. I think it is appropriate, in scope, and desirable for both senders and receivers alike. eric _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
