[ietf-dkim] Revision to draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis posted

2011-04-24 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
A new version of draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis has been posted. This document is in WGLC, closing 4/30; this new version contains those changes that are shown in the WG's issue tracker for which there appears to be consensus or are otherwise uncontested, and I've closed them in the tracker. You c

Re: [ietf-dkim] About DKIM and mailing lists

2011-04-24 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
Pretty short-sighted if you ask me. From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Franck Martin Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 8:33 PM To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org Subject: [ietf-dkim] About DKIM and mailing lists Not a WG per se topic, but then a data poi

Re: [ietf-dkim] Revision to draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis posted

2011-04-24 Thread Hector Santos
Quick question and comment: I see the major change is the TOC (table of content) outline and all the document's TOC references. "Chapter 1" is a "editor" note, (very odd). Is that what we really want for a CHAPTER 1? Especially when it indicates the idea of removal thus once again changing th

[ietf-dkim] Issue: Section 4.3 Hash method Note

2011-04-24 Thread Hector Santos
The new rev 07 text has: INFORMATIVE NOTE: Although rsa-sha256 is strongly encouraged, some senders of low-security messages (such as routine newsletters) may prefer to use rsa-sha1 because of reduced CPU requirements to compute a SHA1 hash. MTAs with compliant verifierst that do not

Re: [ietf-dkim] About DKIM and mailing lists

2011-04-24 Thread John Levine
>Pretty short-sighted if you ask me. NANOG is an interesting mix of cutting edge network managers and people who seem to have configured their networks in 1998 and see no reason to change it now. The latter group often go out of their way to avoid seeing reasons to change it now. R's, John _

Re: [ietf-dkim] Revision to draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis posted

2011-04-24 Thread John Levine
Nits: In 4.5: for consistency, please use the same a-label language for d= and i= tags. The same language needs to go in s= since selectors are domain names, too. Suggested language all three places: Internationalized domain names MUST be encoded as A-Labels, as described in Section 2.3 of

Re: [ietf-dkim] Revision to draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis posted

2011-04-24 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
> -Original Message- > From: John Levine [mailto:jo...@iecc.com] > Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 9:29 PM > To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Revision to draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis posted > > Nits: > > In 4.5: for consistency, please use the sam

Re: [ietf-dkim] Revision to draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis posted

2011-04-24 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
> -Original Message- > From: Hector Santos [mailto:hsan...@isdg.net] > Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 2:25 PM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Revision to draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis posted > > Quick question and comment: > > I see the major c

Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Section 4.3 Hash method Note

2011-04-24 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
> -Original Message- > From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] > On Behalf Of Hector Santos > Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 4:39 PM > To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Subject: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Section 4.3 Hash method Note > > The new rev 07 text has: > >