[mail-vet-discuss] "none" as a possible result string?

[Murray S. Kucherawy]

While I'm waiting for a formal security review of the draft to come in, 
before IESG handoff, I have a discussion item to put out there.

Someone has asked for "none" to be added as a possible result for an 
authentication method.  An example use of this might be a message not 
signed with DKIM, and a DKIM verification agent that wants to be very 
explicit that it processed the message and that the message was unsigned. 
One could argue though that this is redundant to "neutral", which we 
already have, or that the implementor would simply omit to add the header 
altogether in those cases.

In any event, I thought I'd offer it up for discussion while there's still 
a chance to make the change if someone is strongly in favour of such.

-MSK