On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 11:56:30AM -0800, Douglas Otis wrote:
The proposed errata use of the word opaque to describe the d= value,
in addition to the i= value offers _no_ additional clarity.
Given something like this:
d=good.rep.example.net or
d=bad.rep.example.net
do not assume that those identifiers mean "good" and "bad". Good and
bad could be the names of two different companies. A signer could sign
like this instead:
d=53302.rep.example.net or
d=9999.rep.example.net
and this would enforce to the verifier that no meaning should be placed
on what d= contains.
d= is just an identfier that is used to look up the public key and
could further be used as a key into a reputation system.
--
Jeff Macdonald
jmacdonald(_at_)e-dialog(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html