Folks,
The following is offered to prime the discussion/decision process for the one of
the pending Errata items, developed in the SF working group meeting. It reflects
what I heard as the gist of the group preference. Obviously, I might have
entirely misunderstood...
So, anything that permits pr
> -Original Message-
>
> "Old" refers to the Errata I-D; "New" is the proffered replacement.
>
> CAVEAT:
>
> This last-of-three postings affects the same section of text as the
> Assessor
> revision posting, but attends to a different issue. I've only just gotten
> clarification o
I like this text.
Barry
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
I'd probably say 'freudian slip' for that. And +1 for text with
Ellen's change below.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 5:54 AM, Siegel, Ellen
wrote:
> Can you explain why you used "dedicated to the assessment of the delivered
> name" rather than "... of the delivered identifier"? I can live with it
>
+1 Agree with Ellen and Suresh.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
wrote:
> I'd probably say 'freudian slip' for that. And +1 for text with
> Ellen's change below.
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 5:54 AM, Siegel, Ellen
> wrote:
>
>> Can you explain why you used "dedicated to th
On 3/26/09 1:02 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> New:
> The name of the module that consumes DKIM's mandatory payload, the
> responsible Signing Domain Identifier (SDID). The module is dedicated
> to the assessment of the delivered name. Other DKIM (and non-DKIM)
> va
+1 with Ellen's change.
-Jim
Siegel, Ellen wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>>
>> "Old" refers to the Errata I-D; "New" is the proffered replacement.
>>
>> CAVEAT:
>>
>> This last-of-three postings affects the same section of text as the
>> Assessor
>> revision posting, but attends t
+1
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 07:28:15AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>I'd probably say 'freudian slip' for that. And +1 for text with
>Ellen's change below.
>
>On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 5:54 AM, Siegel, Ellen
> wrote:
>
>> Can you explain why you used "dedicated to the assessment of the deliv
Jim Fenton wrote:
> +1 with Ellen's change.
+1
--
J.D. Falk
Return Path Inc
http://www.returnpath.net/
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
At 17:02 25-03-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>The following is offered to prime the discussion/decision process
>for the one of
>the pending Errata items, developed in the SF working group meeting.
>It reflects
>what I heard as the gist of the group preference. Obviously, I might have
>entirely misun
> It may be better to have "Assessor" or "DKIM Assessor" unless you
> want to constraint the module to consume the SSID only or identities
> only.
The whole point of defining this term is to isolate the assessment of
the identity from other decisions. I think it's best as it is, with
"Identity As
11 matches
Mail list logo
