-----Original Message-----
From: dkim issue tracker
[mailto:trac+dkim(_at_)zinfandel(_dot_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 11:45 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: [dkim] #9: Minor editorial issues
#9: Minor editorial issues
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.
I'm more comfortable with ADMD, but only slightly so. "ADMD" strikes me as the
construct that has a human element to it, where "DNS domain" does not. In that
sense, a DNS domain cannot, itself, take responsibility for anything.
I think of all the terms available to us, ADMD seems to be the least incorrect.
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?
I think 1.3 is OK as-is to introduce the concepts of FBLs (it is, after all, a
definitions section), but I can take a run at collecting the others to a single
section; maybe 5.9 can merge into 6.
"OK" to the rest of the edits proposed here.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html