Subject: [ietf-dkim] Suggested text for more intuitive parameter descriptors

From: Arvel Hathcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:09:00 -0500

> - 1201/1217 were the same. Arvel volunteered to write a
> requirements-like sentence to the effect that human-friendly 
> syntax is nicer and whenever that sentence is agreed we add 
> it and CLOSE these

How about this (this doesn't need to be too wordy):

"Expectations MUST be presented in the Protocol syntax using as intuitive a descriptor as possible.  For example, p=! would be better represented as p=strict."

Is this ok?

-- 
Arvel 

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

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 01:26:05 +0200

Arvel Hathcock wrote:

> For example, p=! would be better represented as p=strict.
 
> Is this ok?

The text is fine, but wasting bytes while talking about DNS
strikes me as bad idea.  After a few more iterations in this
direction we'd get XML-over-DNS CallerID again... <shudder />

Frank