On Apr 10, 2009, at 6:34 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Folks,
Barry Leiba wrote:
As chair, I note that any attempt to use the "errata" format of the
update document to *remove* text will be fraught. The text will
still exist (and will, in fact, be repeated in this document).
As a participant, my inclination would be to have the update
replace the whole Appendix D like this:
...
But I could also accept leaving Appendix D as it is for now, and
dealing with it in the 4871bis effort.
I'd like to strongly encourage the working group to defer this
change until the -bis work.
Agreed.
It appears the definition in RFC 4871 Section 1.1 for the term Signing
Identity will remain, although this term's use has mostly been
replaced by AUID with changes made elsewhere.
The MUA consideration section uses the term Signing Identity (AUID)
which is similar to and perhaps might be mistaken for the term Signing
Domain Identifier (SDID).
Replacing AUID in the MUA consideration section with SDID, as was
proposed, represents a significant change to the base draft. For
clarity sake, replacing the term Signing Identity with AUID would not
be a change to the base draft.
First, there isn't any urgency, since we do not know of any
immediate -- nevermind serious -- problems being caused by the
current text.
Agreed.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html