On 02/10/10 16:22, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > On 10/2/2010 5:58 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: >> On 01/10/10 18:28, Dave CROCKER wrote: >>> I think the text should therefore be revised from: >>> >>>> 1.1. Signing Identity >>> ... >>>> INFORMATIVE RATIONALE: The signing identity specified by a DKIM >>>> signature is not required to match an address in any particular >>>> header field because of the broad methods of interpretation by >>>> recipient mail systems, including MUAs. > ... >>> to be: >>> >>> 1.1. Signing Identity >>> ... >>> The signing identity specified by a DKIM signature is entirely >>> independent >>> of the identities present in any particular header field. The >>> interpretation of >> >> s/identities/identifiers/ above? > > > Well, I did have a similar thought, when writing the proposed change, > but that's a more substantial change, since it moves from saying > "entity" to saying "reference to the entity". > > The usage later in the sentence needs to match earlier in the sentence > where it says "signing identity", which is the term being defined in > that subsection. > > How about: > > 1.1. Signing Identity > ... > The signing identity specified by a DKIM signature is entirely > independent of the identities referenced in any particular header field. > The interpretation of...
Yeah, its a minor point and you're right that smaller changes are better so that's fine by me. I guess from a purist p-o-v, I think we could argue that only identifiers appear directly in protocols, and never identities, but since there's no need to go there, let's not:-) Cheers, S. > > > d/ > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
