Pasi,
Thanks for the review.
Pasi(_dot_)Eronen(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com wrote:
- I think introducing clear terminology for the identity/identities (or
identifier/identifiers) "output by DKIM" would make DKIM significantly
easier to understand, and would be useful in this document, too.
Places that probably would get easier to understand with this
terminology include at leastSections 1.1, 2, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1.1, 3.1.4,
4.1, 4.3, 4.5, and 5.
That sounds like a normative change to DKIM, but the Overview isn't intended to
be normative. Wouldn't that change better apply to RFC4871bis?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html