Folks,
I think this is the second or third suggestion for specific wording changes to
the Errata draft.
I'm looking for discussion and resolution of each suggestion, so I can fold
them
and and we can put this to bed.
d/
ps. FWIW, my intent in included SDID was that the particular naming scheme is
outside of DKIM semantics. So marketing.example.com and hq.example.com, versus
newsletter.example.org and invoices.example.org are significantly different
naming schemes, but the semantics behind them is opaque to DKIM semantics and,
therefore, to the Identity Assessor.
Tony Hansen wrote:
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.
I agree that SDID should not be listed in that last sentence.
...
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html