ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] forward movement, please?

2008-05-01 02:15:41
Arvel Hathcock wrote:

I propose that the side advocating maintaining the NXDOMAIN
check as an actual algorithmic step agree to remove this
from the algorithm description in favor of placement 
somewhere else.

I favour to swap steps 1 and 2:  
Looking for _adsp._domainkey.nxdomain.example. is a waste of
time when nxdomain.example. does not exist.  I'd favour to
keep it in the spec., it is needed for result nxdomain.  If
you nevertheless remove both (the step and the result) make
sure to tell Murray about it.

 Frank

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>