Several people pointed out the problem in that, and we changed it to
the current
> * Additional key management protocols or infrastructure.
I think it's fine as it currently is, yes? I don't think it needs
If I am understanding the issue correctly, then yes, 'additional' should
be sufficient:
The working group effort is based on a specification that provides
a key query service. No *additional* ones need to be explored in this
round of effort.
d/
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org
