On 8/10/2010 9:56 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> The latter two have emerged. Neither is formally within scope of the >> working group, although b. is a natural addition. Note, however, that it >> is formal protocol specification work and we need to worry about adoption >> first - - who needs to adopt it and why do we think they will? > > Is that really true? The document is informational and is deliberately > avoiding being normative about anything. Its posture is intended to convey > experience of the industry so far in deploying DKIM and MLMs in tandem, and > provide some suggestions of how that co-operation could be improved.
The comment was about b, which specified additional semantics and a set of conventions (that is, a protocol) for achieving it. This is the extra header-field I suggested. The current draft touches this realm, but clearly it's beyond the scope of your current project. Rather, the current effort is prompting us to note some related issues. As for Informational, I'll repeat that the core of your draft -- the part that is entirely withing the direct scope as I understand it -- contains normative language. And I think that's appropriate. But that makes it not Informational, but probably a BCP. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
