> -----Original Message----- > From: Hector Santos [mailto:hsan...@isdg.net] > Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 4:58 PM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Output summary - Purported Author > > > 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.
That's probably true, but that is also completely different from necessitating a change to the mandatory 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? The editor note, quite obviously, is temporary. > 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? How about: 1. Introduction [...] 1.1. DKIM Architecture Documents Readers are advised to be familiar with the material in [RFC4686] and [RFC5585] and [RFC5863], which respectively provide the background for the development of DKIM, an overview of the service, and deployment and operations guidance and advice. 1.2. Signing Identity [...] _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
