On 2/2/09 8:48 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Eliot Lear wrote:
I think perhaps it would help, Dave, if you could step through the
ramifications of your concerns.
I don't understand your question. What is it about the Introduction
to the Errata that is not sufficiently clear or complete?
You appear to be asking about the ramifications of being
non-interoperable, and I know you don't really mean that.
That's right. What I mean is this: what is the case that gets you to
non-interoperability? How is i= used such that it breaks things? You
write in your introduction:
For DKIM to be interoperable and useful, signer and consumer must
share the same understanding of the details about the name.
and:
The DKIM specification fails to clearly define what is "payload" to be
delivered to a consuming module, versus what is internal and merely in
support of achieving payload delivery.
I know what you're referring to, but I don't see the interoperability
failure. Where does interpretation of i= lead to something bad
happening/ Clearly you've been working into problems, so please explain
in some additional detail.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html