For there to be reasonable semantic meaning, it must be understandable.
Whether it were done by adding semantic signposts for i=, additional tag
values, or additional 5322 headers, it should *not* be done in an ad-hoc
fashion.
Quite right. We need drafts, implementations, all the usual stuff.
At this point, i= is clearly nothing other than an opaque token with
a funky syntax, which seems not to be very useful semantics.
I get the impression that some people (not you) are under the
misconception that if they can sneak their pet feature into the spec,
that will force everyone to implement it.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html