Douglas Otis wrote:
1) Why?
There is use in specifying an API here. Every other protocol we've
named so far as examples have an API, whether de facto from lots of
experience, or implicit from the spec that defines it the protocol,
or something actually explicit defining the API. There's no
evidence that this is a bad idea.
This has already been defined by RFC 4871 as the i= value, and when
that is not available, this defaults to @<d= value>.
This is why I as seeking an answer to why just d= and not anything
else. What it for a reputation system?
What if the new Assessor was for POLICY? which will need three inputs:
boolean Dkim Verification result
string 5322 Dkim-Signature: d= value
string 5322 From: domain value
Why isn't this DKIM-BASE errata preparing its sister chartered
protocol ADSP (policy) in preparation for this three input field assessor?
--
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html