Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I just wanted to demonstrate that, IF we follow the
logic of not crossing protocol boundaries strictly, THEN communicating
the d= payload /without additional information/, we
* either enforce upper layers to violate layers or
* in advance we discourage in advance the design and development of
a number of useful applications that otherwise could have been
built on top of DKIM.
In the archives I found exactly this same concern and discussion, see
for example the contribution of Jim:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org/msg11105.html
Indeed, the chickens have come to roost. This was ill-conceived at the
time of the errata, and it is ill-conceived here. It is yet another reason
why I believe that the protocol described in 4871bis only bears passing
resemblance to 4871 and interoperation will be purely coincidental.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html