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?
I probably should have added "if the WG decides to adopt such terminology" here. But if the other documents continue using phrases such as 'the "d=" value', then probably this document should be aligned with the rest (and not introduce new terminology). Best regards, Pasi _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
