-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 13, 2009, at 9:47 PM, DKIM Chair wrote:
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?
Let me say first that I am a firm believer that if people are having
trouble understanding something, then it's not clear. It needs to be
re-explained.
I'm an author, and I have no trouble understanding it. Any fault I
must bear is in the communication end, not the understanding end.
Yes, I think the errata makes sense. I *hope* it provides a useful
clarification, but I'm not the one to ask. I'm partially responsible
for the existing not-entirely-clear text. You have to ask someone else
about that. I think it explains it better, but I understood the first
one. Lastly, no, I don't object to the text. I think we should pass it
and move on.
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.
I hope so. I think that a 4871bis document will do no good. I think
that if ADSP wants to use i=, it needs to accept the way i= is, or use
a new tag that is what it is -- or use d=. I don't care which. I think
it's useful either way, myself.
I hope we agree, but this whole discussion is about things that are
clear to me.
Jon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Universal 2.6.3
Charset: US-ASCII
wj8DBQFJlxzIsTedWZOD3gYRAjO8AJ9zOWN1GDWK/LpcCok1SQFvbRNhegCgr+vf
8jJlUUGKYjT7Djoov+Aouao=
=+Yvi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html