"... 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.
Hmm. I think a number of us were assuming that it would be obvious that message
using the same UAID were intended to be evaluated as being within the same
sphere of responsibility. That is distinct from saying that messages within the
same sphere of responsibility MUST use the same UAID.
In other words, I think the intent is that messages using the same UAID MUST be
intended to be evaluated as sharing the same sphere of responsibility (this is
a mandate on the sender's usage, not on the receiver's interpretation); senders
SHOULD thus label messages intended to be evaluated as being within that sphere
with the same UAID (but aren't required to). I don't think that's a
contradiction....
The question is whether this introduces enough confusion that we need to either
1) clarify the missing side of the coin, as above and/or 2) strengthen the
existing requirement so that the other part just falls out.
Ellen
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html