On 10/13/10 4:32 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
It seems to me you're saying the same thing bis-02 is saying, but with
perhaps less terse language. In particular, bis-02 says "SHOULD NOT
validate" something that's malformed, while you're saying "SHOULD" validate
format before processing. Those sound the same to me, but if people like
this expression of it better then I'm also happy with it.
Correct; I had problems with the wording and organization but not the
intent.
You're right about splitting the verifier advice out to Section 6. Good
point. And your rewrite of 8.14 is cleaner than what we have now.
I agree that using a MUST is too strong; not only is it a very hard
requirement to achieve but it wanders into the realm of making DKIM modules
responsible for 5322 enforcement, and I don't like that at all. Thus I think
SHOULD is appropriate, and MAY is even more so (but I'll settle for the
former).
A minor point: I would like your proposed 5.3 and 6.1.1 (should that be
6.1.2?) text to contain something like "See Section 8.14 for further
discussion."
I'm fine with that. You may have picked up an inconsistency in section
numbers between 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 because I was having trouble deciding
whether to put this new section before or after the existing 6.1.1.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html