ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Modified Introduction text forrfc4871-errata (resend)

2009-06-18 14:24:09
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>