From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Handling the errata after the consensus call
The discussion seems to be straying beyond certain useful
boundaries... as Stephen says, let's keep it within those. So, in
particular, with my "participant" hat on:
It seems to me that the relevant point isn't whether you do or don't
like ADSP and whether you will or won't deploy it... but, rather, that
we agree on the details of it. If you're a signer and you don't like
ADSP, you won't publish ADSP information. If you're a verifier and
you don't like ADSP, you won't retrieve ADSP information.
So what matters is that we agree on what the ADSP information says and
means, and that we agree on the interpretation by a verifier of its
Starting with your last point first.... there can only be one
interpretation by a verifier of its (published ADSP record)
absence...... the signing domain does not implement ADSP.
With regard to the other discussion, for the implementations I'm engaged
in, d= works fine for ADSP. I recognize that for other implementations
using i= provides additional value. I therefore would support keeping
the reference string (domain part or HRS of i=) as i=. The fact that the
errata discusses opaqueness for DKIM base does not preclude using RHS of
i= for ADSP implementation.
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to