ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Moving on to ADSP - was RE: Handling the errata after the consensus call

2009-03-11 10:11:54
John Levine wrote:
I'm not sure what my opinion is on that last point, but on the first
point I think it's best to define an identifier that's specifically
for ADSP's use, if we want that function.  Some signers may give that
tag the same value they give i=, and there's no harm done.  Some
signers may use a different value, which would demonstrate the wisdom
of separating them.
    

Seems like a reasonable way to avoid the i= fight. If there's interest,
I can whip up a new ADSP draft with an r= tag.

R's,
John
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
  
I would be interested. If ADSP isn't supposed to be part of the base
spec, there's no reason folks interested in using it can't add a
specific additional tag to implement it.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>