Jeff,
Thanks...
On 9/22/2010 12:18 PM, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
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"?
pretty subtle, but yeah, more precise/accurate.
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.
well, that's a pretty thoughtful suggestion...
To make sure I understand the intent: move the set of subsections that
introduce higher-level constructs, to come before the sub-sections that define
syntactic elements?
Sounds like an improvement to me.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html