> -----Original Message----- > From: Hector Santos [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 11:26 PM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Updating Section 6.5: Recommended > Signature Content > > Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >> Common examples of fields with addresses and fields with > >> textual content related to the body are: > >> > >> o From > > -1 with the removal of the original text of: > > o From (REQUIRED in all signatures) > > The 5322.From header is a fundamental binding requirement in DKIM > signatures.
It is redundant to the first sentence in the text of Section 6.4 which already says From MUST be signed; there's no reason to repeat it here, especially since this section is clearly advisory in nature only, and thus there's no harm in removing it. > > I'd actually like to add Authentication-Results because an agent > > that wishes to claim that observed authentication meta-data should > > become part of the message core certainly should sign such a field, > > but that's not worth recycling at Proposed and basically RFC5451 > > already says that anyway. > > IMO, you should as it will help with DKIM Mail Integration. If you > think this current non-standard header is IETF RFC material fit issue, > then is it possible to use a generalized text: > > o Any DKIM related verification results and trace fields That's not correct; RFC5451 is standards track. The issue is that adding things to DKIM now will prevent its progress toward Draft Standard, which is something we're trying to avoid. Removing things, on the other hand, doesn't introduce any backward compatibility issues, and so that's allowed. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
