-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of
Bill(_dot_)Oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 5:49 PM
To: jdfalk-lists(_at_)cybernothing(_dot_)org
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Working group last call on
draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report
We are not holding up the dkim spec, we are wanting a datapoint to be
kept in the draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report
But:
a) It's technically out of scope, i.e. it's not a data point relevant to DKIM
itself since RFC4871 doesn't say anything at all about a binding between "d="
and anything else in the message, so its removal would actually be justified;
however
b) It was not actually removed from the draft, it was simply reworded to be
more precise as suggested by one of the other participants[1]. It's right
there on page 10, at least on the version I'm looking at on the IETF web site.
So are you saying you want the old wording back for some reason? If not, I
don't see what the complaint is.
It looks like I dropped the AOL version of the same statistic by mistake. I'll
add it back in after last call completes.
Gmail did not provide me with their version of that statistic. Since it's of
such interest, I'll ask for it, but I may not get it.
-MSK
[1] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2010q4/014572.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html