[ietf-dkim] Output summary - Purported Author

[Hector Santos]

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
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com