[ietf-dkim] Suggested text for more intuitive parameter descriptors

[Arvel Hathcock]

> - 1201/1217 were the same. Arvel volunteered to write a
> requirements-like sentence to the effect that human-friendly 
> syntax is nicer and whenever that sentence is agreed we add 
> it and CLOSE these

How about this (this doesn't need to be too wordy):

"Expectations MUST be presented in the Protocol syntax using as intuitive a descriptor as possible.  For example, p=! would be better represented as p=strict."

Is this ok?

-- 
Arvel