ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-base-08.txt

2007-01-26 08:33:25


--On January 26, 2007 3:18:33 PM +0100 Frank Ellermann <nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> wrote:

 [SHOULD NOT reject]
This has been in pretty much since the beginning

Sorry, I saw it in an rfcdiff, but the diffs for chapters 4 up to 8
are a bit confusing.

That could be because no one has thought about it before

In my case IIRC "hasn't noted it before".

So does this mean you're dropping that request, or should it still have more WG discussion?

BTW, in a similar direction, do you intentionally use [SHA] without
(or instead of) [RFC 4634] as normative reference for SHA-256 ?

Yes, because it really is normative.

RFC 4634 also covers SHA-1.  If you don't list RFC 4634 because the
license isn't exactly clear then RFC 3174 could do for SHA-1.  Both
RFCs are informational, but it's probably already accepted that they
don't need a special "downref" procedure anymore.

It seems that DKIM is being held to a higher standard than usual. Making a normative reference to an informational document is just going to create friction, and there seems no obvious reason to do so.

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