Hi Peter, thanks for the review. Comments inline: On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Peter Yee <pe...@akayla.com> wrote:
> Page 5, 2nd paragraph after bullet item, 1st sentence: change > "pre-standards > DomainKeys defined" to "pre-standard DomainKeys-defined". > This doesn't seem to work. The sentence is basically "SPF defined X and DomainKeys defined Y." "defined" is a verb, not an adjective, so I don't think the hyphen is appropriate. > > Page 20, 5th full paragraph, 3rd sentence: regarding whether the field can > be "trusted": why would the MUA check the field in any other location than > prior to the top-most trace field? If the location is the source of > trustedness, then the MUA shouldn't be checking it anywhere else, right? > At the time the work on RFC5451 was originally done, here were some implementations of a plugin API that were not able to prepend trace header fields, and could only append them. Moreover, an MUA or other agent might be configured to trust A-R fields added in more than one place (e.g., a trusted filter), so trusting only the top-most one would limit that possibility. > > Page 23, 4th paragraph: as the MTA (implied to be an MTA within the ADMD) > is not the end consumer of the information and the MUA might understand a > later version of the header, shouldn't the decision to remove (or > essentially ignore) the header be made by the MUA? > Good point. I'll add a note about this. > > Page 32, section 8.6, 3rd sentence: regarding keeping the list "current", > how about using a new RRType in the DNS? > That's certainly one option to solve that problem. However, I'd prefer not to suggest new mechanisms that haven't been deployed yet. I'll post the rest in a -10 revision after the telechat, or if directed to do so sooner. Thanks again, -MSK
