On 02/10/10 16:22, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 10/2/2010 5:58 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 01/10/10 18:28, Dave CROCKER wrote:
I think the text should therefore be revised from:
1.1. Signing Identity
...
INFORMATIVE RATIONALE: The signing identity specified by a DKIM
signature is not required to match an address in any particular
header field because of the broad methods of interpretation by
recipient mail systems, including MUAs.
...
to be:
1.1. Signing Identity
...
The signing identity specified by a DKIM signature is entirely
independent
of the identities present in any particular header field. The
interpretation of
s/identities/identifiers/ above?
Well, I did have a similar thought, when writing the proposed change,
but that's a more substantial change, since it moves from saying
"entity" to saying "reference to the entity".
The usage later in the sentence needs to match earlier in the sentence
where it says "signing identity", which is the term being defined in
that subsection.
How about:
1.1. Signing Identity
...
The signing identity specified by a DKIM signature is entirely
independent of the identities referenced in any particular header field.
The interpretation of...
Yeah, its a minor point and you're right that smaller changes
are better so that's fine by me.
I guess from a purist p-o-v, I think we could argue that only
identifiers appear directly in protocols, and never identities,
but since there's no need to go there, let's not:-)
Cheers,
S.
d/
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html