Document: draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-04.txt Reviewer: Vijay K. Gurbani Review Date: 6 Jul 2007 IESG Telechat date: 6 Jul 2007 Summary: This draft is ready for publication as an Informational. The introduction does a good job of introducing the problem for which the requirements are being sought. Having said that, a few nits follow primarily to improve readability of the draft. 1) S1, consider rewriting as follows to impart more clarity: OLD: This ambiguity can be used to mount a bid down attack which is inherent with systems that allow optional authentication like email NEW: This ambiguity can be used to mount a bid-down attack that is inherent with systems like email, which allow optional authentication 2) S3, consider rewriting as follows to impart more clarity: OLD: This section tries to outline some usage scenarios that it is expected that DKIM signing/verifying will take place in, and how a new protocol might be helpful to clarify the relevance of DKIM signed mail. NEW: This section outlines expected usage scenarios where DKIM signaling/verifying will take place, and how a new protocol might help to clarify the relevance of DKIM-signed mail. 3) S3.1, second paragraph: consider rewriting as follows to impart more clarity: OLD: Thus the receiver is at a disadvantage in that it does not know if it should ... NEW: Thus, the receiver is at a disadvantage in not knowing whether it should ... 4) S3.2, list item 3: The first sentence consists of two fragments joined by a "but". It would be more appropriate to join them by the phrase ", and furthermore". The second fragment does not contradict the first, thus the "but" appears anomalous. 5) S5.1, list item 4: Missing closing ']' in "Refs:..." 6) S5.2, list item 3: s/ala/a la/