On August 10, 2005 at 13:40, Eric Allman wrote:
If anything, DKIM is 1+2. I agree that the binding for dns-based key
management could be pulled out into another document. It seemed to
me at the time that this wasn't necessary. For example, RFC2046
defines both the text MIME type and text/plain subtype; the failure
to have them in separate documents hasn't prevented the addition of
new text subtypes. But other than creating more work for authors and
making it a bit harder for readers to find all the correct documents,
I don't see any damage in it either.
Is the wording of the current draft insufficiently clear about the
ability to extend these fields?
I think things can be clearer, and the restructuring of the
document to clearly separate components can be done. I have made
suggestions on what can be done in past posts (to ietf-mailsig),
but failed to get any feedback that the suggestions were useful.
See
<http://www.mhonarc.org/archive/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=ietf-mailsig&i=200507310535.j6V5ZFK07537%40gator.earlhood.com>
for an example.
A simple thing like restructuring and rewording the document helps
one make sure that what is being specified does not contain unneeded,
and unwarrented, dependencies.
--ewh
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim