--On January 20, 2007 3:59:33 AM +0100 Frank Ellermann
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> wrote:
Internet-Drafts(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org wrote:
Filename : draft-ietf-dkim-base-08.txt
Observations in addition to "example.edu":
- [RFC-DK] Is that ready for publication ? I don't get
what the I-D tracker page actually says, is it approved ?
My understanding is that it will be published at the same time as
DKIM-base.
- 8.1.1 s/displaying MTA/displaying MUA/
Thanks.
- 7.9
s/Permanent Header Messages/Permanent Header Fields [RFC 3864]/
and add [RFC 3864] to the informative references, see also
<http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.message-headers/33>
Good idea.
- 7
s/Standards Track RFCs/any published RFCs/ Otherwise the
following sections make no sense. The clause "approved by
the IESG" should be removed. The RFC-editor is obliged to
ask the IESG for comments in the case of any "independent"
submissions.
There is obviously substantial consensus on this, so the change is in.
- 6.3
"SHOULD NOT reject" because that "could cause severe
interoperability problems" is plain nonsense. Accepting
mail tagged as "suspicious" will cause severe problems
because tagged mail will be most likely deleted without
further checks later. OTOH "reject" is a clean decision
at the border MX.
I think this one requires further discussion before I can change it.
This has been in pretty much since the beginning, and it's come up in
discussions several times, and so far as I can recall you're the
first one to disagree with it. That could be because no one has
thought about it before, or could be because the WG feels it should
remain as-is.
eric
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html