-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Jim Fenton
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 2:34 PM
To: IETF DKIM WG
Subject: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value)
The direction of the DKIM specifications since RFC 4871 have been to
rely less and less on the AUID (agent or user identifier, the i= value
on the signature) to the point that it provides no security benefit. On
the other hand, a malformed AUID can cause a DKIM signature not to
verify, and i= currently adds to the complexity of the DKIM
specification. For this reason, I am formally proposing that the i= tag
and supporting text be removed from 4871bis.
[...]
[as regular participant, not document editor]
I find myself undecided, and I need to think about it a little more. I
certainly agree that simplifying the specification by removing stuff that
provides little use is a good idea, and we've done so with "g=" as well and I'm
fine with that.
OpenDKIM's statistics show that almost half of signatures use "i=", in contrast
to how few used "g=" in other than the default way. Of those that do, only
about 35% are using it in other than the default way. So that's at least 17%
of signatures overall that are trying to do something with "i=". That's
non-trivial.
Moreover, it's substantially more than the percentage that appear to be using
"x=", but we're not considering removing that here.
So it seems like we've got this theory that simpler is better, but we're
applying that theory piecemeal.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html