Re: [ietf-dkim] (registered) domain name (Re: errata revision: opaque

>> One of us should send in a separate technical erratum saying that DKIM >> key records SHOULD be published only for SDID domains that have >> corresponding MX or A records and can receive mail. > > I believe your later posting on this retracted the suggestion, but this issue > strike me as one t

Re: [ietf-dkim] (registered) domain name (Re: errata revision: opaque)

John Levine wrote: > One of us should send in a separate technical erratum saying that DKIM > key records SHOULD be published only for SDID domains that have > corresponding MX or A records and can receive mail. I believe your later posting on this retracted the suggestion, but this issue stri

Re: [ietf-dkim] Consensus points on "errata" draft from the IETF 74 meeting

Barry Leiba wrote: > The new text has all been > agreed to on this list over the last week, in the three sub-threads > that Dave started... which is why we only need a brief check to make > sure they're OK. We're not excluding anything. Folks, To emphasize:

[ietf-dkim] RFC4871-Update Nit - Original Message Submitter

Douglas Otis wrote: > On Apr 3, 2009, at 3:30 PM, DKIM Chair wrote: > >>> 1. On the content, we hashed out a few things that needed tweaking, >>> and Dave has already posted about these. The response looks good. >> The chairs note that Dave's proposed changes have rough consensus. >> We und