Pasi, Thanks for the review.
[email protected] wrote: > - I think introducing clear terminology for the identity/identities (or > identifier/identifiers) "output by DKIM" would make DKIM significantly > easier to understand, and would be useful in this document, too. > Places that probably would get easier to understand with this > terminology include at leastSections 1.1, 2, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1.1, 3.1.4, > 4.1, 4.3, 4.5, and 5. That sounds like a normative change to DKIM, but the Overview isn't intended to be normative. Wouldn't that change better apply to RFC4871bis? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
