SM wrote:
At 02:41 26-01-2009, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Firstly, do we have rough consensus on the substance of
the erratum?
As Dave pointed out in his draft, there is some confusion about
identities in RFC 4871. If this is a clarification of the consensus
at the date of publication of the RFC, then it can take the Errata path.
I believe that clear definitions, relationship and usage of the two values was
never fully developed as a working group consensus. Hence the need to do it
now.
Many participants had their individual understandings, but we didn't specify a
common one.
RFC 4871 defines one signing identity. If the changes proposed in
The document uses that specific term ambiguously. Although, yes, there is a
bit
of text that is quite explicit about the definition, usage elsewhere in the
document is conflicting.
this draft are approved, DKIM will provide two identities. By doing
Common interpretation of the document is that it *already* provides two
identities. The Errata merely makes clear their nature and priority.
so, the draft is introducing concepts which some may see as
formalizing what is in RFC 4871 while others may consider them as
new. Although the proposed input (d= and i=) for the Assessor module
may not affect existing implementations, the draft changes the
definition of these tags.
Errata aren't allowed to fix something by changing it?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html