Eric Allman wrote:
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?
When I tried to add an issue in a 2nd WGLC about USEFOR Harald
(one of the Chairs) said that it's my problem if I missed the
1st WGLC, so I think it's a judgement call for the WG Chairs.
Of course I think it's an "ISSUE", but I didn't look at parts
of the draft shown as "unmodified" by rfcdiff.
do you intentionally use [SHA] without (or instead of)
[RFC 4634] as normative reference for SHA-256 ?
Yes, because it really is normative.
[...]
It seems that DKIM is being held to a higher standard than
usual.
Of course, it's highly controversial. Depending on my mood
I'm still not sure if it's "better" than PRA, or "worse", or
"unrelated". At least the list of supporters is impressive,
and I hope they'll find _good_ ways to make use of DKIM.
Frank
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html