-----Original Message-----
From: Hector Santos [mailto:hsantos(_at_)isdg(_dot_)net]
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 4:58 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Output summary - Purported Author
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.
That's probably true, but that is also completely different from necessitating
a change to the mandatory 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?
The editor note, quite obviously, is temporary.
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?
How about:
1. Introduction
[...]
1.1. DKIM Architecture Documents
Readers are advised to be familiar with the material in [RFC4686] and [RFC5585]
and [RFC5863], which respectively provide the background for the development of
DKIM, an overview of the service, and deployment and operations guidance and
advice.
1.2. Signing Identity
[...]
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html