Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: Michael Thomas [mailto:mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com]
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I don't understand what this would achieve. The syntax is
extensible right now, so why specify something that doesn't
have semantics?
The semantics are already defined in the X.509v3 and PKIX
specifications.
I'm sorry, but the semantics of what a DKIM receiver would
do with it are not. I have no clue as to what it would mean.
Since we have not specified ANY semantics of that type the test is
irrelevant.
Which causes this entire thread to go circular because you
haven't answered my first question. In case it's not clear,
the "something" above refers to the relationship to DKIM,
not the authentication scheme itself.
Mike