Re: [ietf-dkim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis-02.txt

2010-10-13 Thread Charles Lindsey
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 14:00:19 +0100, Dave CROCKER wrote: > Oh boy. Very sorry folks. > > The full text reads: > >> Similarly, a message not compliant with RFC5322, RFC2045 >> and >>RFC2047, can be subject to attempts by intermediaries to >> correct >>

Re: [ietf-dkim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis-02.txt

2010-10-13 Thread Charles Lindsey
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 07:46:42 +0100, Barry Leiba wrote: > There are only two significant changes between -01 and -02 ... most of > the changes are just updating the references. The substantive changes > are: > 1. The addition of the paragraph that begins "Similarly, a message > that is not comp

Re: [ietf-dkim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis-02.txt

2010-10-12 Thread Jim Fenton
On 10/11/10 11:46 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Jim Fenton wrote: >> There's a Working Group Last Call in effect for -01. Should we: >> >> - Continue to direct comments at -01 >> - Comment on -02 instead >> - or will the WGLC be restarted on the -02 draft? > I thin

Re: [ietf-dkim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis-02.txt

2010-10-12 Thread Dave CROCKER
On 10/11/2010 11:46 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > Dave: > There's an error in the new paragraph in section 5.3; the first > sentence appears to have been fragmented. It reads thus: "Similarly, > a message that is not compliant with RFC5322, RFC2045 correct or > interpret such content." > Please post

Re: [ietf-dkim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis-02.txt

2010-10-11 Thread Barry Leiba
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Jim Fenton wrote: >  There's a Working Group Last Call in effect for -01.  Should we: > > - Continue to direct comments at -01 > - Comment on -02 instead > - or will the WGLC be restarted on the -02 draft? I think it's not necessary for us to restart, but reviews

Re: [ietf-dkim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis-02.txt

2010-10-11 Thread Dave CROCKER
On 10/11/2010 1:44 PM, Jim Fenton wrote: > - Continue to direct comments at -01 > - Comment on -02 instead > - or will the WGLC be restarted on the -02 draft? Just my personal opinion: The revision is based on LC comments so far. Since ultimately the working group has to agree on the docume

Re: [ietf-dkim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis-02.txt

2010-10-11 Thread Jim Fenton
There's a Working Group Last Call in effect for -01. Should we: - Continue to direct comments at -01 - Comment on -02 instead - or will the WGLC be restarted on the -02 draft? -Jim On 10/11/10 10:47 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > >> Title: DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures >

[ietf-dkim] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis-02.txt

2010-10-11 Thread Internet-Drafts
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Domain Keys Identified Mail Working Group of the IETF. Title : DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures Author(s) : D. Crocker, M. Kucherawy, T. Ha