Dave, Sure, you can add an new appendix to justify the inconsistencies but it still doesn't resolve the issue of not exposing the in-scope parameters to satisfy the DKIM Service Architecture and all receiver needs related to DKIM. The mandate to impose a certain behavior is unrealistic and does not represent current implementations.
This may not be an interest to you, but it to others. -- Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com Dave CROCKER wrote: > On 5/4/2011 9:15 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> My read is that Rolf is objecting to RFC4871bis on the grounds that it >> conflicts with RFC4686. (He can and should correct me if I'm wrong.) >> >> If his concerns would be satisfied by a change (perhaps an appendix?) that >> simply acknowledges some evolution in thinking based on experience since >> RFC4686 was published, I imagine that wouldn't meet with much resistance. > > > My reading of the concern is specifically that the statement of DKIM's goal > has > been refined over time and that all that might be useful for the current > document is to cite that fact and, perhaps, compare original versus current > statements. The appendix to do that would be very short. It perhaps should > cite the incremental changes across the sequence of wg documents and explain > the > salient meaning of the change, but in informative and not normative terms. > > If there is more material at issue, what is it? > > d/ _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
