On 3/3/2010 7:11 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
On 3/3/2010 2:45 AM, John Levine wrote:
This means that in DKIM, the d= value is a domain, it's punycoded, no
question about that.
I don't recall that in the DKIM specification and I don't recall the part of
the specification the dictates a context in which the punycode version is a
RFC 4871, top sentence on page 20, in the description of d=
RFC 4871, second paragraph on page 21, in the description of i=
Thanks for dredging that up; I had done a thoroughly inadequate quick check of
the doc and used the wrong search term, as well as indeed entirely forgetting
that there was any relevant text at all in the spec.
That said, the text for i= is more of the type that should exist. i= is not
primary parameter, and d= is, but the text for d= is too vague. Probably
than nothing, but too generic.
For the bis effort, I'd recommend this clarification. I think it would fall
within acceptable boundaries of change while going to Draft.
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to