The following is offered to prime the discussion/decision process for the one of
the pending Errata items, developed in the SF working group meeting. It reflects
what I heard as the gist of the group preference. Obviously, I might have
So, anything that permits progress is encouraged, such as "looks good", "change
x to y", and "replace the whole thing with this different chunk of text". There
are no doubt other constructive responses, but this ought to establish the
"Old" refers to the Errata I-D; "New" is the proffered replacement.
This last-of-three postings affects the same section of text as the
revision posting, but attends to a different issue. I've only just gotten
clarification on what this third item was to be, so here's another apology for
bit of confusion.
Had I remembered all 3 items I would have tried to merge this with the
Assessor change, which is what the current note attempts:
8. RFC4871 Section 2.11 Identity Assessor
The name of the module that consumes DKIM's primary payload, the
responsible Signing Domain Identifier (SDID). It can optionally
consume the Agent or User Identifier (AUID) value, if provided to
The name of the module that consumes DKIM's mandatory payload, the
responsible Signing Domain Identifier (SDID). The module is dedicated
to the assessment of the delivered name. Other DKIM (and non-DKIM)
values can also be delivered to this module as well as to a more general
message evaluation filtering engine. However this additional activity
is outside the scope of the DKIM signature specification.
OK. Start shooting.
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to