John R. Levine wrote:
So, for clarity, can you (or someone) call out what you think is
the impact, if any, for ADSP, caused by this proposed change to
4871.
Nothing. ADSP's attempt to force i= to be an identifier that is an e-mail
address was wrong before, and the errata doesn't change that.
Independent of whether ADSP will or will not be useful, John, there is nothing
technical broken about what it is trying to do or how it goes about doing it.
It probably *is* a new model, in terms of what it does and how it does its job,
but again, that's different from whether there ADSP has any theoretical
problems.
For a base spec to say "the value is opaque" and another spec to come along and
say "I'm announcing the particular, and possibly interesting, scheme that I
follow for creating that value, and I promise to conform to that scheme for all
such values that I create" is just fine.
Note for example, that BATV does a version of exactly this for Local-part. The
only 'theoretical' difference is that BATV doesn't publish a record about what
mailfrom creators are conforming.
So if you have a technical argument for this line of criticism that you keep
repeating, I don't recall hearing it. (And you know I'm not a fan of ADSP, but
there are lots of mechanisms that I don't like which are, nonetheless,
technically competent and maybe even useful...)
If it were up to me, I'd remove all the references to i= from ADSP, but
there seem to be people who believe that it will be useful.
An entirely different issue is whether ADSP should refer to i= or to d=, and
whether approval of the proposed Errata should change that choice.
But, then, that was the point of the question that was being asked...
FWIW, my opinion is that it should switch to d=, as the safer, simpler, more
stable, and sufficient value.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html