Lest anyone interpret silence as agreement, I'm OK (not enthusiastic, but OK) with most of the added text in this revision, but I have a problem with the last two paragraphs.
> This does not state what the implicit value of "i=" is, relative to > "d=". In this context, that fact is irrelevant. I'm not sure what point is being made, but RFC 4871 does explicitly define the default value of "i=" (an empty Local-part followed by an "@" followed by the domain from the "d=" tag). It isn't clear what "this" context is, and the paragraph is likely to introduce confusion as to whether the default value in RFC 4871 no longer exists. > Another example is the difference between the socket interface to TCP > versus the TCP protocol itself. There is the activity within the > protocol stack, and then there is the activity within in the software > libraries that are actually used. This analogy isn't clearly stated, and in any case is discussion that is irrelevant in the context of a protocol specification. Both of these paragraphs should be removed. -Jim Dave CROCKER wrote: > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: New Version Notification - draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-07.txt > Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:30:01 -0700 (PDT) > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected], > [email protected], > [email protected] > > New version (-07) has been submitted for > draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-07.txt. > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-07.txt > > > Diff from previous version: > http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-07 > > IETF Secretariat. > > > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
