I there a meaning given in the spec?
It just says (from memory) that it must follow a specific format for the
signature to pass. There may have been an intent here (authenticated user) but
I don't think the spec gives i= a strong meaning.
I could use i=banana(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org d=mipassoc.org with a from:
ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org, and have dkim verification pass, no?
PS: I'm arguing not for the sake of arguing, but being lazy, I prefer to do
with what there is than what has to be built.
PPS: "Everyone knows bananas have the best reputation" - pointy hair boss.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave CROCKER" <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
To: "Franck Martin" <franck(_at_)genius(_dot_)com>
Cc: "IETF DKIM WG" <ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 April, 2011 1:48:06 PM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value)
On 4/5/2011 6:40 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
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?
How is a receiver ever going to know that this new meaning applies?
There is an installed base if i= generation and consumption. Changing i= later
creates an amiguity with that installed usage.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html