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