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