Section 1.3 seems like it should say something about DKIM's
scalability characteristics, not just that of email, since the
other 1.x sections are describing DKIM in various ways.
Hmm.... It also says that the any-to-any characteristic is
important, which might not be true for other services. Any
suggested wording?
How about something like this:
DKIM is designed to support the extreme scalability requirements
which characterize the email identification problem. There are
currently over 70 million domains and a much larger number of
individual addresses. DKIM seeks to preserve the positive aspects
of the current email infrastructure, such as the ability for anyone
to communicate with anyone else without introduction.
Great, thanks.
Section 3.1 The INFORMATIVE IMPLEMENTERS' NOTE seems like it would
fit better later in the document such as section 3.6.
I couldn't quite get this to flow very well. It doesn't belong
under "Textual Representation" or "DNS binding" because the point
is independent of how the record is represented or delivered. It
just doesn't seem to "fit" in the overview. Perhaps I'm missing
something.
I'm not sure of the solution to this either. It just seemed like
it was a little early to discuss that sort of key/selector
management detail right after having introduced the concept of
selectors themselves.
Now I understand. As an attempt to make 3.1 flow better, I moved
this note to the very end of the section.
eric
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html