-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 3:46 PM
To: IETF DKIM WG
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Last call comment: Changing the g= definition
Everyone, please weigh in on how you would like to see this issue
resolved.
Perhaps:
1. Say nothing.
2. Use Tony's text, which is in 4871bis now.
3. Use my text or some variant of it (and is it MUST, or SHOULD?).
4. Something else...?
My first choice is to leave it as-is in 4871bis. The risks of the ambiguity
seem slight to me, but I can see the argument for pushing for something that is
very clean.
Thus, my second choice is to delete 3.6.1.1 from -bis and not make any
reference to interpretation of DK keys at all.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html