Eric Allman wrote: >>> That could be because no one has thought about it before
>> In my case IIRC "hasn't noted it before". > So does this mean you're dropping that request, or should it > still have more WG discussion? When I tried to add an issue in a 2nd WGLC about USEFOR Harald (one of the Chairs) said that it's my problem if I missed the 1st WGLC, so I think it's a judgement call for the WG Chairs. Of course I think it's an "ISSUE", but I didn't look at parts of the draft shown as "unmodified" by rfcdiff. >> do you intentionally use [SHA] without (or instead of) >> [RFC 4634] as normative reference for SHA-256 ? > Yes, because it really is normative. [...] > It seems that DKIM is being held to a higher standard than > usual. Of course, it's highly controversial. Depending on my mood I'm still not sure if it's "better" than PRA, or "worse", or "unrelated". At least the list of supporters is impressive, and I hope they'll find _good_ ways to make use of DKIM. Frank _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
