Hi SM,
Anyone can propose such an update. By the rules established in RFC5451, it
needs to be modified via publication of an RFC that passes through the IESG.
The DKIM WG could do it, or so could an individual submitter with sponsorship
of an AD (or equivalent).
I consider this a low priority though, because after RFC4871bis publishes,
signers will gradually stop including "i=", which means verifiers will either
switch to producing A-R fields with "header.d" instead of "header.i", or they
will still produce the default value of "i=" for their consumers which is
probably what they do now for "d="-only signatures anyway.
-MSK
________________________________________
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of SM
[sm(_at_)resistor(_dot_)net]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 2:25 PM
To: Hector Santos
Cc: IETF DKIM WG
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value)
Hi Hector,
At 11:18 01-04-2011, Hector Santos wrote:
Off hand, and I have to go back, I believe seeing some systems using
Authetication-Results to always include a i= as part of its A-R header
result whether it was defined or not and when not, a default value is
displayed. For example, this is the A-R result for my signature into
this IETF-DKIM list:
Authentication-Results: sbh17.songbird.com;
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.i=@isdg.net
[snip]
Does that mean, a proposal to remove i= in DKIM-BASE, would imply an
update to the A-R draft is necessary?
RFC 5451 is a proposed standard. It is not a product of the DKIM
WG. It's up to the author of that RFC to see whether an update is necessary.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html