--On Thursday, August 25, 2011 01:27 +0200 Frank Ellermann <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Still no normative language, but I think that addresses the >> concerns we have been trying to raise while, at the same time, >> actually saying something (and not implying that three >> IETF-defined protocols are the only options). > > You could reference DKIM as an example, because DKIM signatures > added in the ADMD of the MSA obviously MUST not be destroyed in > that ADMD, and because its "not necessarily end-to-end" concept > is still new (= interesting for readers) and maybe unique. Yes, except that DKIM doesn't necessarily sign _all_ headers, so mentioning it specifically in this context requires a lot more detail... detail that is inappropriate in a full standard given DKIM's apparent maturity. If a primary goal is to mention (advertise?) DKIM, then it it probably better to use Dave's text (despite my concerns and Ned's) and be done with it. > In an earlier mail you wrote: > | Keeping in mind that we assume, at least formally, that > | Submission servers are under the administrative control of > the | sender > > I'm not sure how to interpret that: "Gmail, fix the SPF FAIL > for me, will you." I fear my administrative control has > limits, as outlined in RFC 5598 figure 4 s/transit/SUBMIT/. Please note "formally" and observe that, if you don't like what Gmail is doing, you are not obligated to use them as an address or submission server. Note too that I did not suggest including that text or anything like it in 4409bis. john _______________________________________________ yam mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
