ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] [dkim] #9: Minor editorial issues

2011-04-14 17:41:52
-----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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>