ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] New version - draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-01

2009-02-03 08:12:03
Dave,

Dave CROCKER wrote:
Generally, the changes dealt with:

Sorry, forgot an important item:

     3.  Changed section 6.3 and Appendix D references to be to SDID (d=)

Since the new consensus appears to be that i= has semantics that are entirely
undefined, it does not seem possible that the wg would advise showing it to an
end user.


Further to my earlier message about clarifying the interoperability problem, if the above statement is really the case, why not remove i= entirely? We are already rather strongly warned about its use in RFC 4871. So, what is its remaining value?

Also, in your new version, you write:

8. RFC4871 Section 2.11 Identity Assessor

Original Text:
    (None. Additional text.)
Corrected Text:
The name of the module that consumes DKIM's primary payload, the responsible Signing Domain Identifier (SDID). It can optionally consume the User Agent Identifier (UAID) value, if provided to the module. The conventions and semantics used by a signer to create and use a specific SDID or UAID are outside the scope of the DKIM Signing specification, as is any use of those conventions and semantics.

I don't understand what the last third sentence has to do with the other two. This looks like a cut and paste error.

Eliot

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html