[ietf-dkim] Output summary - Purported Author
hsantos at isdg.net
Sat Apr 30 16:58:14 PDT 2011
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> More importantly, if RFC5451 reference was compliant with DS, I would
>> suggest adding a reference to RFC5585 DKIM Service Architecture is
>> more justified and DS compliant and doesn't promote any current
>> implementation code changes and better prepares future implementations
>> with the proper DKIM output values.
> Referencing RFC5451 as an example doesn't promote any current
> implementation code changes.
Correct. That is what I found when the API only provided the three
outputs (status, signer, selector). A-R reporting with more relevant
information about the process (Checking Signing Practices) did
necessitate an extension of the API verification output.
> Providing a reference to RFC5585 may not be a bad idea though,
> and RFC4686 and RFC5863 as well. Perhaps somewhere in Section 1?
Section 1 as in Introduction? or Note to the Editor?
For an introduction, I think that will work. Most people perusing a
document like quick references to overviews with "pictures" very helpful.
How will you state it?
Hector Santos, CTO
More information about the ietf-dkim