On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 01:44:32PM -0800, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
My understanding of opaque allows identical opaque values to
identify the same "something".
Then you're arguing for something stronger than what the draft
proposes. The draft uses SHOULD, where to match your understanding,
it would need a MUST.
Could you post the section you are referring to?
Sure, section 10 of the errata draft:
"... The Signer MAY choose to use the same namespace for its UAIDs as its
users' email addresses, or MAY choose other means of representing its
users. However, the signer SHOULD use the same UAID for each message
intended to be evaluated as being within the same sphere of
responsibility, if it wishes to offer receivers the option of using the
UAID as a finer grained, stable identifier than the SDID."
I believe you're talking about increasing the strength of that SHOULD.
Yes, I suppose I am. But I hadn't realized that SHOULD meant that
identical UAIDs could mean they are not identical.
--
Jeff Macdonald
jmacdonald(_at_)e-dialog(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html