On 10/26/09 9:40 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >> Specifically, it's clear to me, from WG >> conversations and hallway track at MAAWG and elsewhere, that more guidance is >> needed in terms of how DKIM results get interpreted in certain contexts such >> as mailing lists and other third-party signing. Even if the output of that >> process is "DKIM doesn't tell you anything here", this needs to be more >> explicit. >> >> If we don't want to change this document so late in its evolution, that's >> fine; I'd be happy if it came out as a BCP document later, either from the >> IETF or through a body like MAAWG. >> > > Separate BCP on details on usage: +1 > > > d/ >
+1, but a forward reference of some sort, like "a separate work is planned on this topic" wouldn't be out of order. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
