No objections here.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 8:00 PM
To: J D Falk
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: overview document does not mention
message validity
J D Falk wrote:
Here's core question with this sort of overview: It can include too
much tutorial about basic technology, rather than focusing on the
specifics of the technology it is meant to describe. Some pedagogy
is
needed, but how much?
I've been noticing that data integrity (much better term, thanks) is
often forgotten when discussing DKIM, yet it's clearly very important
to
some senders. Section 2 is basically "what will DKIM do for me?" --
so
I think it should be included there.
point taken.
does anyone object to the proposed change?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html