Jim Fenton wrote:
I am formally proposing that the i= tag
and supporting text be removed from 4871bis.
[snip]
In a conversation with Dave Crocker and Murray Kucherawy, they noted the
use of the local part of i= as an opaque identifier. Its use as such an
identifier is not described in any standard, but the relaxation of the
current restrictions on the use of i= (that the domain-part be a
subdomain of d=, etc.) would result in an incompatibility with RFC
4871-compliant verifiers. It is, however, possible to remove it
entirely without creating a compatibility problem.
By remove, does that mean implementators can safely begin to not offer
it for Domain signers to use or consider?
Documenting this stuff to layman operators is HARD especially when we
don't even have a firm grip of its utility or what value it offers. :)
If its one more useless thing we don't have to ambiguously document
for customer to understand and use with no real verification payoff,
then +1 to remove i= from DKIM.
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html