On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 09:04:10PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Dave CROCKER <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
It looks as if the two of you are agreeing that the i= value is indeed
opaque to a receiver.
Cant speak for madkins but that's my impression. I would also add
"often irrelevant" besides "opaque"
you lost me Suresh. It seemed like you were saying that i= would be
useful for different streams or groups of identities but then you say
I believe what i= means is irrelevant from the perspective of a
receiver, but it does denote that something is different than a
straight d= value. Is that your thinking too?
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to