Dave Crocker wrote:
Jim Fenton wrote:
The term 'signing address' is used several places within -base, so it
might warrant being defined in section 2. Since the first mention of it
is in the introduction, I'd propose that we add a forward reference in
the introduction. So the second paragraph of section 1.2 would become:
Your suggestion seems fine to me, but I find myself once again reflecting on our
terminology.
A domain name is often -- but not always -- an address. However it is never an
email address.
In the context of DKIM, which is in the context of email, the signing is being
done by an identity -- indicated by a domain name -- rather than by an email
address (or even necessarily an IP Address; there is no requirement that the
signing domain have one.
We do have d= which is the signing domain which is what seems to me to
line up with what you are saying. But i= requires the local part
because of
its relationship to g= in the selector, as well as its relationship
to (eventually)
SSP.
Any chance folks would consider:
signing address
->
signing domain
By this do you mean removing the local part of i=?
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html