Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Thomas [mailto:mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com]
Current implementations are irrelevant. They will completely
and utterly ignore what is in 4871bis, because they are done
and work fine. The problem is whether we've introduced problems
which will cause new implementations to not interoperate with
current implementations. Given the huge number of changes, it's
impossible to tell without getting real life data.
I quite agree that there's lots of text that's changing, but I'm
having trouble finding much in the way of actual protocol change.
Most of the changes I can recall have to do with dropping advice
or technical context that was simply incorrect or poorly stated
given the hindsight we now have. Fixing all of that can only
help future implementations.
Probably, but with less functionality which will not depict the
current DKIM Service Architecture currently supported by implementations.
This is why moving to DS is not allowed if we add stuff, only
if we remove stuff. So far, unless I've missed something, that's
all we've done.
But I think the comments are suggesting there really isn't anything
new being added from what is not already peppered throughout the
document in some form providing non-spec changing justification to
include in-scope outputs in the proposed Output Summary.
Isn't RFC4871bis should be about codify existing implementations which
if you think about it, what the RFC5585 overview has done?
Overall, I believe there are four output values that are not new and
can be extracted from DKIM:
status
d=
i=
From:
You can probably write text for From:
Since the From: is a mandatory input header bound
to the signature, the address or the domain part
of the address may be considered output to be
consumed by an optional signature signing practice
as described in the DKIM Service Architecture [RFC5585].
It would not be untrue and consistent with RFC5585 which is not new.
If we allowed to RFC5451 to RFC4871bis, then we should allow a add
a more directly DKIM related reference to DKIM Service Architecture
[RFC5585] document.
Doesn't that fit with DS?
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html