On 4/1/11 10:01 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
Jim Fenton wrote:
I am formally proposing that the i= tag
and supporting text be removed from 4871bis.
In a conversation with Dave Crocker and Murray Kucherawy, they noted
the use of the local part of i= as an opaque identifier. Its use as
such an identifier is not described in any standard, but the
relaxation of the current restrictions on the use of i= (that the
domain-part be a subdomain of d=, etc.) would result in an
incompatibility with RFC 4871-compliant verifiers. It is, however,
possible to remove it entirely without creating a compatibility problem.
By remove, does that mean implementators can safely begin to not offer
it for Domain signers to use or consider?
I should probably have used the term "deprecate" rather than "remove".
That's correct, an implementation compliant with 4871bis would not
normally use the i= tag/value in signatures.
Documenting this stuff to layman operators is HARD especially when we
don't even have a firm grip of its utility or what value it offers. :)
That's part of the reason for deprecating the feature: if people don't
understand the utility of it, and it is not being used, then it is only
adding complexity to the spec.
If its one more useless thing we don't have to ambiguously document
for customer to understand and use with no real verification payoff,
then +1 to remove i= from DKIM.
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to