Dave CROCKER wrote:
Steve Atkins wrote:
Given that the RHS of i= is either identical or a subdomain of d= it's
nonsensical
to consider i= more stable than d=, as i= must change if d= does.
In fact, other than the right-hand root of the i= string which must match the
d=
string, nothing in the i= value must exist anywhere except in the message
containing it. It's difficult to get much less stable than that.
i= can be a subdomain of d=. In fact, it is arguably *more* stable as
i= can remain the same while moving d= up in the hierarchy.
So somebody please inform Dave that he should re-read 4871 section 3.5.
This thread now seems to be re-discussing the working group decision that
has already been approved both by the working group and the IESG.
This hasn't been approved by the IESG.
Since the exchange with Bill that replaced "reputation" with
"assessment", I
have not seen any suggestions for changes to the text proposed for addition
to
the draft.
I suggest that any normative changes placed on the assessor module are
outside
of the scope of the DKIM working group.
Since Dave has /From: mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com/h:j, he still won't see any
suggestions.
Have we converged on the text or does anyone have specific changes they are
seeking?
No.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html