On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Dave CROCKER <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
John, et al,
*****
Does anyone else have comments on the draft???
*****
I just reviewed the diffs:
Section 3.9:
INFORMATIVE DISCUSSION: This document does not require the value
of the SDID or AUID to match the identifier in any other message
header field.
should "the identifier" be "an identifier"?
I cringed at SDID and AUID, but I don't have any better suggestions at
the moment.
Reviewing the flow of the document, I suggest moving section 2.7-2.11
to be after section 2.2.
--
Jeff Macdonald
Ayer, MA
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html