It does.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 12:01 PM
To: Adkins, Michael
Cc: DKIM IETF WG
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft Errata on RFC 4871
Adkins, Michael wrote:
Your notes in 10 and 11 are correct in that UAID should be replaced
with
SDID, with one caveat. If you can't assume that the UAID is even an
identity, there is no reason to warn the reader that the UAID is
different from the From address or point it out.
The only cases where the handling mail system would want to follow the
Errata as currently written are when they have reason to believe that
the UAID is the responsible identity.
If I'm understanding the exchange you two are having, I think it means
suggesting two changes to the draft Errata:
1. For 10 and 11, change UAID to be SDID.
2. Add text about the use of i= stating that it's use for assessment
goes
beyond using d= and is MUST be based on additional knowledge of its
creation
that is outside the specification.
Does this reflect what you two are implying?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html