Hi Dave,
At 07:29 22-02-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
First, you say "generally" which means that an errata is not
disqualified by being controversial. Further, I've never heard of
any requirement for being non-requirement. My own experience with
errata is pretty small, but I've seen them range from silly to obvious.
I am not stating that the requirement for an errata is that it must
not be controversial. This was merely a comment on the entire errata
discussion.
I don't understand this statement, if it means more than your stated
concern about ADSP. FIrst, any specification is determining how
things will be done in the future. Any correction (errata) to a
specification is modifying the specification and, therefore, also
determining how things will be done in the future. You imply there
is something bad about this, whereas it's inherent. Please clarify.
I am not implying that there is anything bad about your proposal or
having an erratum. My comment (I'm not using the word concern as it
would be too strong in this context) is that the decision to choose
between d= and i= affects the direction of any work done on DKIM in future.
I am reasonably certain the draft Errata makes no such
requirement. At the least, Please explain. Your quotation, above,
does not contain any text that makes this obvious to me.
That text is from Section 2.7 of draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-09. Your draft
Errata does not make such a requirement.
It is further confusing that you cite some ADSP text as the basis
for your concern about the Errata draft, but then go on to cite some
of Jim's text as the basis for saying his is the better choice.
I did not link Jim's text to my citation of the ADSP text. Now I see
that it can be confusing. I was going through the comments from
several people to get a view of what had been discussed. I commented
on a specific part of Jim's proposal and then went on to explain why
I chose (d).
Leaving i= as opaque is the job of a specification, not a usage
document. How does Jim's draft help leave i= as opaque?
I suggested some text for the errata. The text leaves the Local-part
of the "i=" value as opaque.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html