Folks,
My intent with the suggested wording was *only* to make the language exactly
match what DKIM requires. It was an exercise in precision, accuracy and
completeness, not modification or enhancement. That is, nothing new was
intended.
It clearly did not achieve that goal.
I'm reading the dominant sense of the considerable set of postings on this
topic
as being: Return to the original wording of the Errata draft.
Hence the wording should be: "A single domain name that..." for both SDID and
AUID.
Does this match everyone's assessment of consensus?
d/
Dave CROCKER wrote:
I think this does motivate two improvements to the draft language, one for
SDID
and one for AUID:
6. RFC4871 Section 2.9 Signing Domain Identifier (SDID)
...
New:
A single domain name that is the mandatory payload output of
DKIM and that refers to the identity claiming responsibility for
introduction of a message into the mail stream. For DKIM
processing, the name has only basic domain name semantics; any
possible owner-specific semantics is outside the scope of DKIM.
A single domain name -> A single, registered domain name
7. RFC4871 Section 2.10 Agent or User Identifier (AUID)
...
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.
A single domain name -> A single, syntactically valid domain name
{{ no, I'm not in love that that wording choice. /d }}
How much indigestion does this cause?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html