ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Clarifying i=/d= in 4871

2009-01-18 14:01:06
Stephen Farrell wrote:
[...]
Could be. However, I don't think we need to halt all progress on ADSP.
We can and should clarify ADSP (e.g. as requested by Pasi) and then if
it turns out that a new erratum on 4871 is agreed, we may or may not
need to revisit something in ADSP.

Given where we're at in the process for ADSP, I would have thought that
those who feel that i=/d= needs clarifying in 4871 would try resolve
that as a matter of (relative) urgency. Otherwise ADSP is likely to
be in Pasi's queue for a long time.

Hello Stephen and Dave, i'm not professional about Internet Draft. 
However, totally i agree with Stephen's opinion.

And I know that reappraisal about RFC4871 is tired. But i'm sure that 
the reappraisal *will* make more perfect ADSP ;;

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