On Apr 12, 2011, at 1:18 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
Please post minor editorial things to this thread. If you find
substantive issues, please start a new thread for each, and prefix the
subject with "Issue:". As we discuss those, if any come up, let's
keep the discussion focused on the issue.
The abstract and introduction both talk about an ADMD, but I'm not sure that's
right. The ADMD is /often/ equivalent to the DNS domain, but not always. And
actually, lists are a pretty good example of when they're separate: all my
lists are on a Mailman installation that's configured as lists.disgruntled.net,
but some of the lists' addresses are in other domains -- and they're all signed
with d=disgruntled.net on the way out. So, I think "allows a DNS domain to
assume some responsibility" would be more accurate.
The background section refers to "an agent of the email architecture" instead,
which may also be more accurate.
(Or maybe it allows an ADMD to /assign/ responsibility to a DNS domain? But
that's a more confusing concept, and I don't think this document is the place
to wrestle with those issues.)
Last paragraph of the introduction: "As each type has..." (not types)
Section 1.3 feels out of place, but I'm not sure how to improve it. Maybe move
all of the FBL-related text (currently 1.3, 5.9, and 6) to a single section?
Section 3.3, "Major body changes": "insert" should be "inserting"
First paragraph of 4.1 reads oddly; perhaps: "...the author SHOULD be cautious
when deciding whether or not to send a signed message to the list."
Final paragraph of section 5.1 reads oddly as well; perhaps "Expressions of
list-specific policy (e.g., rules for participation, small advertisements,
etc.) are often added to outgoing messages by MLM operators." ... "This sort of
information is commonly included in footer text appended to the body of the
message, or header text prepended above the original body."
The first "[ADSP]" in 5.2 isn't an xref. Later in that paragraph: "...a
resending MLM SHOULD reject outright any mail from an author whose domain posts
such a policy, as those messages are likely to be discarded by any ADSP-aware
recipients..."
In that same paragraph, it may not be necessary to talk about discouraging
subscribers -- that's covered in 5.3.
In 5.5, suggest removing "although this is not yet formally documented" because
this document is documenting it. *grin*
When mentioning FBLs in 5.7, it'd be helpful to have a reference to section 1.3.
Later in 5.7, should we stipulate that a DKIM-aware resending MLM SHOULD NOT
use the l= tag?
In 5.10, third paragraph: replace "deliverability" with "delivery" (or just
"other issues.")
Should the security considerations section also explicitly refer to (see
also...) the security considerations from [DKIM], [ADSP], et cetera?
Appendix A: I prefer "J.D." rather than "JD", though neither is technically
accurate.
--
J.D. Falk
the leading purveyor of industry counter-rhetoric solutions
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html