ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] draft Errata on RFC 4871

2009-01-27 10:12:42


SM wrote:
At 17:06 26-01-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
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.

That section also does not tie the term to a particular tag.  So what is the 
problem with not changing the section?


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.

The proposed errata changes the text.  So I'm not understanding what point you 
are making here.


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.

I don't understand.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html