Dave CROCKER wrote:
Jim Fenton wrote:
Nevertheless, what's in the specification represents working group rough
consensus, in connection with issues 1399 and 1519. There have been
opportunities in WG Last Call and IETF Last Call to reconsider that
decision.
So, Jim, I commend your effort at retrieval specific references.
Certainly ADSP needs to say what string it is using.
Unfortunately your presenting citations raises the question of whether
they resolve the current question. My own conclusion is that they do
not, for several reasons:
1. 1399 received no substantive discussion and was then declared
redundant with 1519. So citing it winds up confusing the current
discussion.
Issue 1399 was open for over 4 months, surely enough time for anyone who
wished to comment to do so. If there is a requirement for a specific
amount of substantive discussion on an issue, please cite it.
2. 1519 had nothing to do with the choice between d= vs. i=. It
asked a very different question about i=.
3. One could argue that all discussion "assumed" i=, but that's a
very different claim that one that says we considered d= vs. i= and
chose i=.
In message http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2008q3/010582.html ,
Stephen summarizes the issues around issue 1519 well, notes that the
draft includes matching the local-part of i=, and invites further
discussion. There was none, so the issue was closed about 10 days
later. Since d= does not have a local-part, it would not seem that it
qualifies.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html