Quick question and comment: I see the major change is the TOC (table of content) outline and all the document's TOC references. "Chapter 1" is a "editor" note, (very odd). Is that what we really want for a CHAPTER 1? Especially when it indicates the idea of removal thus once again changing the TOC outline and all references again in the final publication?
In regards to issue #1 (section 2.3 or 3.3 for rev 07 now). No one directly indicate a +/- 1. You actually agreed "authorized signer" is an identity. Barry and Dave incorrectly suggested the author (AUID) has no association with the signature or SDID when in fact the author (FROM: header) is the only single fundamental requirement for binding headers. Its an inherent association with both authorized and unauthorized semantics. In fact, Dave referenced an informational RFC to reason the unauthorized semantic, but neglected to note (which I followed up on) the two sections with greater details devoted to authorized signer semantics, in particular to WG chartered security and functional requirements RFC productions. With no other WG input, this is hardly a show for rough consensus? It just seems "WG procedural rules" are followed or not depending what suits the agenda. -- HLS Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > A new version of draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis has been posted. This document > is in WGLC, closing 4/30; this new version contains those changes that are > shown in the WG's issue tracker for which there appears to be consensus or > are otherwise uncontested, and I've closed them in the tracker. You can use > the datatracker link > (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis/; click on the > History tab) to get a view of the diffs to make sure we have them right. > Things that have been edited or added as a result of tracker items are marked > with "{DKIM #}" tags. Text that has been removed has, well, been removed. > > Any changes that have had some contention are not yet included and instead > will remain open through the end of WGLC. > > I'll be doing the same for the MLM BCP later today. > > -MSK > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
