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

[Eric Allman <[e-mail]>]

--On January 20, 2007 3:59:33 AM +0100 Frank Ellermann 
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> [e-mail] wrote:
>
>>         Filename        : draft-ietf-dkim-base-08.txt
>
> Observations in addition to "example.edu":
>
> - [RFC-DK]  Is that ready for publication ?  I don't get
>   what the I-D tracker page actually says, is it approved ?

My understanding is that it will be published at the same time as 
DKIM-base.

> - 8.1.1 s/displaying MTA/displaying MUA/

Thanks.

> - 7.9
>   s/Permanent Header Messages/Permanent Header Fields [RFC 3864]/
>   and add [RFC 3864] to the informative references, see also
>   <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.message-headers/33>

Good idea.

> - 7
>   s/Standards Track RFCs/any published RFCs/  Otherwise the
>   following sections make no sense.  The clause "approved by
>   the IESG" should be removed.  The RFC-editor is obliged to
>   ask the IESG for comments in the case of any "independent"
>   submissions.

There is obviously substantial consensus on this, so the change is in.

> - 6.3
>   "SHOULD NOT reject" because that "could cause severe
>   interoperability problems" is plain nonsense.  Accepting
>   mail tagged as "suspicious" will cause severe problems
>   because tagged mail will be most likely deleted without
>   further checks later.  OTOH "reject" is a clean decision
>   at the border MX.

I think this one requires further discussion before I can change it. 
This has been in pretty much since the beginning, and it's come up in 
discussions several times, and so far as I can recall you're the 
first one to disagree with it.  That could be because no one has 
thought about it before, or could be because the WG feels it should 
remain as-is.

eric
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html