I've put the revised version of the draft (I called it "-03a") up on
<http://www.neophilic.com/~eric/DKIM/draft-ietf-dkim-base-03a.html>.
This has the changes we discussed yesterday, and I'm hoping that
enough people will have read the relevant sections that we can
discuss them in our Monday Jabber session.
The changes are:
Section 3.6: drop mention of passing "i=" tag to key lookup module.
Section 6: result codes changed to be just "OK/FAIL/TFAIL" with a
parenthetical (and explicitly non-normative) explanation.
Section 6: the wording about "MUST perform these steps in order"
changed to "Verifiers MUST produce a result that is semantically
equivalent to applying the following steps in the order listed. In
practice, several of these steps can be performed in parallel in
order to improve performance."
Section 6.6 (MUA Considerations) promoted to Section 7.
I did look at the Introduction with an eye to changing it to match
the threats document, but I recall the wording that we have in -base
to have been heavily discussed; I don't see a way to change them to
be in better agreement without nullifying the effect of that
discussion. We might want to put this on the agenda on Monday.
In addition to what we discussed yesterday, this version contains the
updated wording regarding key expiration: the text is now
informational, and the "seven day" wording has been changed to
something less prescriptive.
eric
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html