On 10/26/09 11:02 PM, Eliot Lear wrote: > 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.
Agreed. -Doug _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
