Jon says...
4871 is in my opinion as an author clear about i=. You have but to read it and
the informative notes. One might think it's amorphous, but it's at least an
explicit amorphousness. It survived a rough consensus, at least implicitly. I
will summarize 4871 as "signers can do whatever makes sense to them, receivers
have to live with that." If Aleister Crowley were around, he would have said
that the law around i= is "do what thou wilt."
Do you think that the text in Dave's errata draft keeps that sense, whether or
not you think it provides useful clarification?
Do you think that the text in Dave's errata draft provides useful clarification?
Do you object to the text in Dave's errata draft?
Jon says, along with the rest of the note...
This same principle holds for other people who aren't happy with the precise
semantics of i=, d=, g=, or anything else. Make a header and sign it, or stick
a new field into the DKIM header. It's *that* *simple*!
If we want to clarify the i= semantics in errata, sure. Whatever. But all the
people who want i= to be something it isn't are much better served by making
what they want than by trying to pretend that i= is the same shape as the peg
they are holding in their hand. It isn't. Make a new hole to fit that peg, and
we will all be much happier.
I think that's exactly what I said in my points 3 and 4, including the part (in
point 3) about pushing such changes into extensions, rather than twiddling with
i=.
Again, it sounds like we're in agreement, here, on how to proceed.
Barry
--
Barry Leiba, DKIM working group chair (barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org)
http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html