Dave CROCKER wrote:
darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn
darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn
definition of AUID is screwed up. didn't mean to change it.
so...
Dave CROCKER wrote:
7. RFC4871 Section 2.10 Agent or User Identifier (AUID)
Old:
A single, opaque value that identifies the agent or user on behalf
of whom the SDID has taken responsibility.
New:
A single domain name that identifies the agent or user on behalf
of whom the SDID has taken responsibility. For DKIM
processing, the name has only basic domain name semantics; any
possible owner-specific semantics is outside the scope of DKIM.
New:
A single value that identifies the agent or user on behalf
of whom the SDID has taken responsibility. For DKIM
processing, the domain name portion of the AUID has only basic
domain name semantics; any possible owner-specific semantics is
outside the scope of DKIM.
Whew. Thanks for the revision. I'm happy with this and the other
definitions in your original message, although I'd suggest s/semantics
is/semantics are/
Just for completeness, I'll point out that some might feel that the
(indirect) statement that the domain name portion of the AUID has
domain name semantics is too strong. The subdomain portion (the
portion, if any, that is a subdomain of the SDID) doesn't need to be an
actual domain at all.
I'm not sure it's necessary to clutter the definition with this detail,
however. I'm happy with it the way it is.
-Jim
|
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html