[ietf-dkim] Revision to draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists posted

[Murray S. Kucherawy]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER
> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 9:11 AM
> To: ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Revision to draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists posted
> 
> My own primary concern, here, is that the document clearly mark the difference
> between what is currently withing the DKIM specification and what goes
> beyond it.

So maybe just this (note the trailing paragraph):

   Section 5.5 of [DKIM] includes a list of header fields that a
   signature SHOULD include in its header hash and discusses reasons for
   doing so.  MLMs that sign MUST adhere to those guidelines, extended
   as follows: {DKIM 12}

   o  Any [AUTH-RESULTS] fields added by the MLM;

   o  Any [LIST-ID] or [LIST-URLS] fields added by the MLM;

   o  Any [MAIL] fields, especially Sender and Reply-To, added or
      replaced by the MLM.

   Note that [DKIM] does not ascribe any specific meaning to what is or is
   not included in the hashes that make up the signature.  This is an extension
   to DKIM's semantics insofar as the MLM is taking responsibility for the
   specific fields it added or altered.