[ietf-dkim] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-base-08.txt

[Eric Allman]

--On January 26, 2007 3:18:33 PM +0100 Frank Ellermann 
<nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de> wrote:

>  [SHOULD NOT reject]
>> This has been in pretty much since the beginning
>
> Sorry, I saw it in an rfcdiff, but the diffs for chapters 4 up to 8
> are a bit confusing.
>
>> That could be because no one has thought about it before
>
> In my case IIRC "hasn't noted it before".

So does this mean you're dropping that request, or should it still 
have more WG discussion?

> BTW, in a similar direction, do you intentionally use [SHA] without
> (or instead of) [RFC 4634] as normative reference for SHA-256 ?

Yes, because it really is normative.

> RFC 4634 also covers SHA-1.  If you don't list RFC 4634 because the
> license isn't exactly clear then RFC 3174 could do for SHA-1.  Both
> RFCs are informational, but it's probably already accepted that they
> don't need a special "downref" procedure anymore.

It seems that DKIM is being held to a higher standard than usual. 
Making a normative reference to an informational document is just 
going to create friction, and there seems no obvious reason to do so.

eric