Re: [ietf-dkim] removing the g= definition?

> > Another potential option is to remove g= entirely:
> I'd like to encourage our considering this strongly, for two reasons:
I agree, g= seems to me to be a vestige of the confusion between i= and d= 
identity.
If we do, it's probably a good idea to put in Tony's WARNING for people 
upgrading from DK.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for 
Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html