-----Original Message-----
From: John Levine [mailto:johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 9:10 PM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Open issues in RFC4871bis
2.3. Identity
A person, role, or organization. In the context of DKIM, examples
include the author, the author's organization, an ISP along the
handling path, an independent trust assessment service, and a mailing
list operator.
The current language looks fine to me.
Some people are talking about changing the wording here. I think it would be
helpful to frame that part of the conversation.
The text cited above as 2.3 is not new. It reached working group consensus
already because it was part of RFC5672. Thus, its presence in RFC4871bis is
already effectively approved. Any changes to it require new consensus. My
citing it isn't introducing anything new; anyone that is proposing changes to
it has to garner consensus to make any changes stick.
Similarly, the proposal to drop "i=" and all text that refers to it is a change
from everything we've approved so far, and requires working group consensus to
make that change.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html