Subject: [ietf-dkim] base -02: Nits and other minor comments

From: Jim Fenton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 10:26:56 -0700

I'll group together all the comments that I have that, I think, should
not be controversial.  I'll send comments on a couple of potentially
controversial topics separately.

Page header:  s/DKIM Signing/DKIM Signatures/

Section 2.3, first bullet:  add space before [

Section 3.1, penultimate paragraph:  s/make this selector
associated/make this selector associate/

Section 3.3.4, last sentence of paragraph 1: s/Security
policies/Verifier policies/

Section 3.5, "bh=" tag needs ABNF.

Section 3.5, "h=" tag, s/that is being created or verified/of which it
is a part/

Section 3.5, "l=" tag, s/Body count/Body length count/

Section 3.7, second paragraph, s/over the header/over selected header
fields/

Section 3.7, last paragraph, s/encryption algorithm/signature algorithm/
(only some signature algorithms, such as RSA, are encryption algorithms
as well.  We might also want to change the label "crypt-alg" to
"sig-alg" or something like that.)

Section 4, paragraph 2, s/receievers/receivers/

Section 6.3 seems not to include reference to the body hash (bh=) tag. 
In particular, it should explicitly call for the hash of the
canonicalized body to be compared against the bh= value.

Section 6.5, last paragraph refers to Authentication-Results in a
normative context; the reference needs to be removed to avoid creating a
document dependency.

Section 7, last paragraph needs to be removed because DKK is not defined
here.

Section 8.7, title, s/malformed/Malformed/

Section A.2, examples need to be updated to include v= and bh=.

Let me know if I should break out any of these separately.

-Jim

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