Dave CROCKER wrote:
- I think introducing clear terminology for the identity/identities
(or identifier/identifiers) "output by DKIM" would make DKIM
significantly easier to understand, and would be useful in this
document, too. Places that probably would get easier to understand
with this terminology include at leastSections 1.1, 2, 2.1, 2.2,
3.1.1, 3.1.4, 4.1, 4.3, 4.5, and 5.
That sounds like a normative change to DKIM, but the Overview
isn't intended to be normative. Wouldn't that change better apply
I probably should have added "if the WG decides to adopt such
But if the other documents continue using phrases such as
'the "d=" value', then probably this document should be
aligned with the rest (and not introduce new terminology).
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to