Jim,
Jim Fenton wrote:
1. 1399 received no substantive discussion and was then declared
redundant with 1519. So citing it winds up confusing the current
discussion.
Issue 1399 was open for over 4 months, surely enough time for anyone who
wished to comment to do so. If there is a requirement for a specific
amount of substantive discussion on an issue, please cite it.
Since 1399 has no discussion of i= vs. d=, and since it was declared redundant
with 1519, the issue is moot. It's irrelevant to the current discussion.
2. 1519 had nothing to do with the choice between d= vs. i=. It
asked a very different question about i=.
3. One could argue that all discussion "assumed" i=, but that's a
very different claim that one that says we considered d= vs. i= and
chose i=.
In message http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2008q3/010582.html ,
Stephen summarizes the issues around issue 1519 well, notes that the
draft includes matching the local-part of i=, and invites further
discussion. There was none, so the issue was closed about 10 days
later. Since d= does not have a local-part, it would not seem that it
qualifies.
You think that failing to discuss an topic that was outside the scope of the
cited issue and, in fact, was not raised then, is somehow relevant to the
current discussion? I don't understand that logic.
More importantly, it seems a distraction from the current discussion: There is
a real problem and it needs real resolution that the current specification does
not provide.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html