Jeff, Thanks...
On 9/22/2010 12:18 PM, Jeff Macdonald wrote: > 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"? pretty subtle, but yeah, more precise/accurate. > 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. well, that's a pretty thoughtful suggestion... To make sure I understand the intent: move the set of subsections that introduce higher-level constructs, to come before the sub-sections that define syntactic elements? Sounds like an improvement to me. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
