On 8/30/2010 1:10 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote: >> I'd suggest that the second item actually be a normative specification of >> value-added features. This requires a change to the charter, and so it would >> have to wait until completing the current charter. > > can you elaborate on what, in your view, would be part of this normative > specification?
merely as an example, I'll cite the usage of DKIM for subscription and submission validation that has been mentioned a few times. Formally, using DKIM that way is almost certainly a value-added semantic that goes beyond the semantics of the DKIM signing specification. That's ok to do, but requires a normative spec to define the behavior and meaning. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
