[mail-vet-discuss] Auth-Results issues #1

[Murray S. Kucherawy]

I've finally got time again to take part in this discussion, so here we go, 
top-to-bottom.  Sorry for the mail flood this implies.

Tony Hansen wrote:
> There should be an indication somewhere that this header is on the
> standards track.

It's my understanding that a standards track proposal is only appropriate for 
protocols whose implementation/interpretation will span administrative 
boundaries.  Since that's clearly not true for something that is added by a 
receiver/verifier for consumption by a message recipient, the informational 
track seemed more appropriate.  LMTP was cited to me as an example.

> I've gone round and round in my mind with what to do with this paragraph
> in Section 1:
>    At the time of publication of this draft, only [AUTH] is a published
>    sender authentication standard.  However, several more are in the
>    Internet Draft stage.  As various methods emerge, it is necessary to
>    prepare their appearance and encourage convergence in the area of
>    interfacing these filters to MUAs.
> 
> It's good sales pitch, but I don't think it should really belong in the
> final version of the RFC. I suggest that it be marked as a "Note (to be
> removed on publication)". Also, change "prepare their" to "prepare for
> their".

Both done.