[ietf-dkim] Misc. fairly minor issues

[Eric Allman]

--On July 7, 2006 2:32:17 PM -0700 Jim Fenton <fenton at cisco.com> 
wrote:

> Eric Allman wrote:
> ...
>> I changed the first line of the bh= description to read "The hash
>> of the body part of the message as limited by the "l=" tag (base64;
>> REQUIRED)."
> I think we need to say "canonicalized" somewhere there, as in "hash
> of the canonicalized body".

Agreed.

>>>> #14 3.5, "d=". The relationship between "d=" and "t=s" in the key
>>>> record and "i=" is a bit complicated.
>>>
>>> Agree.
>>
>> Could someone please propose simpler wording?
> I'm doing a good job at coming up with more complex wording, but
> that's not really helpful.  The relationship between i=, d=, and
> the t=s flag of the key record is subtle enough that perhaps it
> should be a separate section, e.g., 3.8.  Then we might have:
> (actual text deleted)

That's great --- thanks Jim.  I did modify it somewhat to incorporate 
Doug's suggestion.

eric