[ietf-dkim] Working group last call on draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report
Murray S. Kucherawy
msk at cloudmark.com
Tue Oct 5 04:48:00 PDT 2010
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Bill.Oxley at cox.com
> Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 5:49 PM
> To: jdfalk-lists at cybernothing.org
> Cc: ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Working group last call on draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report
> We are not holding up the dkim spec, we are wanting a datapoint to be
> kept in the draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report
a) It's technically out of scope, i.e. it's not a data point relevant to DKIM itself since RFC4871 doesn't say anything at all about a binding between "d=" and anything else in the message, so its removal would actually be justified; however
b) It was not actually removed from the draft, it was simply reworded to be more precise as suggested by one of the other participants. It's right there on page 10, at least on the version I'm looking at on the IETF web site.
So are you saying you want the old wording back for some reason? If not, I don't see what the complaint is.
It looks like I dropped the AOL version of the same statistic by mistake. I'll add it back in after last call completes.
Gmail did not provide me with their version of that statistic. Since it's of such interest, I'll ask for it, but I may not get it.
More information about the ietf-dkim