Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-----Original Message-----
More importantly, if RFC5451 reference was compliant with DS, I would
suggest adding a reference to RFC5585 DKIM Service Architecture is
more justified and DS compliant and doesn't promote any current
implementation code changes and better prepares future implementations
with the proper DKIM output values.
Referencing RFC5451 as an example doesn't promote any current
implementation code changes.
Correct. That is what I found when the API only provided the three
outputs (status, signer, selector). A-R reporting with more relevant
information about the process (Checking Signing Practices) did
necessitate an extension of the API verification output.
Providing a reference to RFC5585 may not be a bad idea though,
and RFC4686 and RFC5863 as well. Perhaps somewhere in Section 1?
Section 1 as in Introduction? or Note to the Editor?
For an introduction, I think that will work. Most people perusing a
document like quick references to overviews with "pictures" very helpful.
How will you state it?
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html