At 17:06 26-01-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
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.
In my opinion that cannot be done through an erratum.
Common interpretation of the document is that it *already* provides
two identities. The Errata merely makes clear their nature and priority.
The draft Errata does not update Section 1.1 of RFC 4871 which
discusses about Signing Identity.
Section 3.5 of RFC 4871 defines "d=" as the domain of the signing
entity. And the relevant paragraph goes on saying that the domain
that will be queried for the public key. It does not mention whether
it's only for the retrieval mechanism or if it can also be read as an identity.
If we were having a wider discussion, I would ask about the purpose
of key granularity (g= in Section 3.6.1) when "d=" is considered as
the "stronger" identity.
Errata aren't allowed to fix something by changing it?
Based on the first paragraph that I quoted and the current
discussion, the answer in this case is no.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html