Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: Streamline Abstract

From: Jim Fenton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:59:49 -0700

Dave Crocker wrote:
>  > NEW:
>  >
>  >     DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) defines a domain-level
>  >     authentication framework for email to permit verification of the
>  >     source and contents of messages.  This document specifies an adjunct
>  >     mechanism to aid in assessing messages that do not contain a DKIM
>  >     signature for the domain used in the author's address.  It defines a
>  >     record that can advertise whether they sign their outgoing mail, and
>  >     how other hosts can access those records.
>
>
>   
After all of the discussion a few months ago about the need to consider 
all of the addresses in the From header field (and not just the first 
one, lest we break RFC 2822, etc.) shouldn't we use the plural here?

Also, the second sentence conflicts with the definition of Author 
Signature in section 2.7.  I suggest the following:

This document specifies an adjunct mechanism to aid in assessing 
messages that do not contain a valid DKIM signature corresponding to the 
author address(es) in the message.

I would keep the old version of the third sentence, that makes it 
clearer that it's domains that are doing the advertising.

-Jim

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

---

From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: 4 Jun 2008 13:59:54 -0000

>clearer that it's domains that are doing the advertising.

Yes, those all seem reasonable to me.

As I hardly need tell you, no matter how long and hard one stares at
a document, there's always editorial problems that escape notice
until someone else looks at it.

R's,
John