On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Dave CROCKER <[email protected]> wrote: > John, et al, > > ***** > > Does anyone else have comments on the draft??? > > ***** >
I just reviewed the diffs: Section 3.9: INFORMATIVE DISCUSSION: This document does not require the value of the SDID or AUID to match the identifier in any other message header field. should "the identifier" be "an identifier"? I cringed at SDID and AUID, but I don't have any better suggestions at the moment. Reviewing the flow of the document, I suggest moving section 2.7-2.11 to be after section 2.2. -- Jeff Macdonald Ayer, MA _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
