On August 10, 2005 at 13:40, Eric Allman wrote: > If anything, DKIM is 1+2. I agree that the binding for dns-based key > management could be pulled out into another document. It seemed to > me at the time that this wasn't necessary. For example, RFC2046 > defines both the text MIME type and text/plain subtype; the failure > to have them in separate documents hasn't prevented the addition of > new text subtypes. But other than creating more work for authors and > making it a bit harder for readers to find all the correct documents, > I don't see any damage in it either. > > Is the wording of the current draft insufficiently clear about the > ability to extend these fields?
I think things can be clearer, and the restructuring of the document to clearly separate components can be done. I have made suggestions on what can be done in past posts (to ietf-mailsig), but failed to get any feedback that the suggestions were useful. See <http://www.mhonarc.org/archive/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=ietf-mailsig&i=200507310535.j6V5ZFK07537%40gator.earlhood.com> for an example. A simple thing like restructuring and rewording the document helps one make sure that what is being specified does not contain unneeded, and unwarrented, dependencies. --ewh _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list [email protected] http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
