ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues

2006-07-09 17:45:40


--On July 7, 2006 2:32:17 PM -0700 Jim Fenton <fenton(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:

Eric Allman wrote:
...
I changed the first line of the bh= description to read "The hash
of the body part of the message as limited by the "l=" tag (base64;
REQUIRED)."
I think we need to say "canonicalized" somewhere there, as in "hash
of the canonicalized body".

Agreed.

#14 3.5, "d=". The relationship between "d=" and "t=s" in the key
record and "i=" is a bit complicated.

Agree.

Could someone please propose simpler wording?
I'm doing a good job at coming up with more complex wording, but
that's not really helpful.  The relationship between i=, d=, and
the t=s flag of the key record is subtle enough that perhaps it
should be a separate section, e.g., 3.8.  Then we might have:
(actual text deleted)

That's great --- thanks Jim. I did modify it somewhat to incorporate Doug's suggestion.

eric
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html