Bill,
The word "default" means that an alternative can be specified. Within the
formal specification that's not what is normatively provided for, per the
errata/update clarification. There is no mechanism for specifying an
alternative source for the primary, delivered identifier.
Within the four walls of the formal DKIM specification (as modified by the
errata/update), d= is the primary value delivered to the assessor. i= is not
specified as a possible alternative for this role.
A verifier can always choose to do anything (else) it wants to, but that it
outside the four walls of the specification. Within the spec, things are not
flexibile on this point.
As for the "still used and assessed" text you suggest, it seems to be redundant
with the draft's existing "However, this does not prohibit message filtering
engines from using the "i=" tag, or any other information in the message's
header, for filtering decisions" text.
d/
Bill(_dot_)Oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com wrote:
If the intent is to get everyone to use d= for an identifier to reduce
confusion between d= and i= perhaps
"More specifically, it clarifies that the default identifier
is the value of the "d=" tag.
Other tags such as the i= may still be used and assessed"
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html