>> RFC 4871, top sentence on page 20, in the description of d= >... >> RFC 4871, second paragraph on page 21, in the description of i=
>For the bis effort, I'd recommend this clarification. I think it would fall >within acceptable boundaries of change while going to Draft. I agree the two sentences should say the same thing. Don't feel strongly about the wording since the way UTF->punycode works is the same for all domain names everywhere. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
