Eliot Lear wrote:
One remaining point of discussion:
While the confusion arises between d= and i=, what verifiers do with a
valid signed message is still up to them. They could take input from
various header fields if they wish (and some assuredly do and will).
Correct.
Just as they can ignore the Reply-To, use whatever TCP congestion control
algorithm, or alternate route ranking they want, no matter what BGP tells them.
No problem with interoperability for any of those choices, either.
Bottom line: A protocol is about defining specific and constrained semantics
that are shared between both sides of an exchange. The fact that any
participant is free to deviate from that protocol is always true. Hence there
is no 'information' in pointing it out, unless you want to start adding it to
every protocol spec. Sort of like other RFC boilerplate, it won't be all that
helpful, except for making the document bigger.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html