Pasi, Did I miss your response about this substantive point?
d/ Dave CROCKER wrote: > [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
