Subject: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-00 submitted

From: Eric Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 12:44:29 -0800

The i-d draft-ietf-dkim-base-00 has been published.  This is the 
follow-on to draft-allman-dkim-base-01.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dkim-base-00.txt

eric
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2006 00:50:51 -0800

Hi Eric,
>follow-on to draft-allman-dkim-base-01.

3.4.6  Example

"Assuming a "c=relaxes/relaxed" canonicalization algorithm, a message"

There is a typo.  That should be "c=relaxed/relaxed".

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Mark Delany <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 08:17:09 +0000

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dkim-base-00.txt

And a belated "Thank You" to Eric.

Like most WGs, there seems to be a posse of "G"as-baggers (such as
myself) and a tiny minority who actually do useful "W"ork. Eric has
clearly put in a lot of hard and thankless yards to get us to, what I
think is, an advanced and professional specification.

For those who are new to this list, the -00 designation could be
mis-construed as new, untested, unstable etc. Nothing could be further
from the truth. In terms of stability, a more accurate designation is
more along the lines of an -05 or -06.

Mark.

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html