ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] draft Errata on RFC 4871

2009-01-26 09:58:36
On 1/26/09 3:38 PM, Siegel, Ellen wrote:

The new text does introduce new terminology, but I disagree that it is adding 
new concepts.

  The issue that the new text is attempting to address is that the existing 
language describing the concepts is confusing, and in some cases inconsistent 
and/or absent, and will likely lead to interoperability issues if it has not 
already.
   

Please say more because this is not at all clear to me.  Why are more 
TLAs (or in this case FLAs) there?  Also, you've defined another term: 
Identity Assessor.  Why?

Finally, I'll add one more comment, and then I'll withdraw.  There are a 
lot of errata filed for 4741. This is a good indication that it's 
probably time for another version, and I would view this as good news 
because it demonstrates a lot of work has occurred.  Congratulations to 
all!  Whether that version is PS or draft is a debate unto itself, but 
not my debate ;-)

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