SM wrote:
At 11:52 06-05-2011, Barry Leiba wrote:
We've had a bit of discussion in this thread (and elsewhere) about
this, but I need to get a clear view of consensus. Doug agrees with
Hector's note, below, and Dave and Murray do not. I'd like to hear
from others within the next few days, about whether you think we
should make the change Hector requests or not. I need to get a sense
of whether there's significant support for it. Again, please keep
As I could not find any description of an interoperability issue in
the arguments that have been made, I cannot support any change.
Section 1.1 says
Readers are advised to be familiar with the material in [RFC4686],
[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.
What do you think will happen when they read the DKIM Service
Architecture, Security and Deployment Consensus Built Documents, all
peppered with Signing Practices concepts?
Do you think they will wonder why 3.9 doesn't bother to mention
anything regarding that large chunk in that pretty Software Engineer
Process Model illustration?
Oh well.
--
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