So if we keep i= as is in the spec, we can conclude the standard process and
give a meaning of i= outside this spec in another RFC?
No, it's not backward compatible. My signatures all have a fully
compliant i= value which is not an e-mail address. (Take a look.)
Fortunately, the DKIM spec is upward compatible, and we can invent new
fields.
So, if people think that a "real ID" assertion would be of value, write up
a draft and it can be an experimental add-on to DKIM. I say experimental
since we have, as far as I can tell, no actual experience with such a
thing.
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
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html