ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Comments on draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report-01

2010-10-02 10:24:49

On 10/2/2010 5:58 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 01/10/10 18:28, Dave CROCKER wrote:
I think the text should therefore be revised from:

1.1.  Signing Identity
...
       INFORMATIVE RATIONALE: The signing identity specified by a DKIM
       signature is not required to match an address in any particular
       header field because of the broad methods of interpretation by
       recipient mail systems, including MUAs.
...
to be:

1.1.  Signing Identity
...
       The signing identity specified by a DKIM signature is entirely 
independent
of the identities present in any particular header field. The interpretation 
of

s/identities/identifiers/ above?


Well, I did have a similar thought, when writing the proposed change, but 
that's 
a more substantial change, since it moves from saying "entity" to saying 
"reference to the entity".

The usage later in the sentence needs to match earlier in the sentence where it 
says "signing identity", which is the term being defined in that subsection.

How about:

1.1.  Signing Identity
...
        The signing identity specified by a DKIM signature is entirely 
independent of the identities referenced in any particular header field. The 
interpretation of...


d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>