There's one other editorial problem with the abstract in ssp-04:
in "... that can advertise whether they sign their outgoing mail...",
"they" and "their" has no clear antecedent.
Perhaps "... that can advertise whether a domain signs its outgoing
mail..."
Ellen
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 7:55 AM
To: ietf-dkim
Subject: [ietf-dkim] Issue 1575: Streamline Abstract
Issue description: https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1575
Thread: http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2008q2/010386.html
ssp-04 contains the new abstract suggested in the tracker.
Two changes were suggested on the list that aren't
included in ssp-04, I think those were:
- s/address/address(es)/
- s/DKIM signature/valid DKIM signature/
If there's no further discussion, I'll ask Eliot to close
this one on July 11.
S.
_______________________________________________
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