I think this message by Barry in March 2009 summarizing a conference
call between Pasi, Stephen and Barry nicely captures the upper/lower
layers, ADSP, i= and outputs conflicts that continue today:
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2009q1/011314.html
Perhaps Dave to lower confusion, you need to remove the "Checking
Signing Practices" process module from the DKIM Service Architecture
or perhaps consider changing the title:
DKIM Service Architecture with optional ADSP support
Extended DKIM Service Architecture
To ADSP or not ADSP, that is the question.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com
Hector Santos wrote:
Dave,
My perspective was that the "damage was done" per se in the last
errata and changes with this bis are irrelevant and don't reflect
current existing implementations. Code changes are not necessary for
current implementations because they already follow the DKIM Service
Architecture with does include ADSP support. However from a strict
RFC4871bis and the proposed Output Summary standpoint, it does not
reflect with complete DKIM Service Architecture (RFC5585), as it was
written, so it be told.
Its really a simple matter from my engineering perspective and if I
was confusing the DKIM requirement with ADSP requirements, I am not
the only one. There is a clear history of this in the WG and I don't
see anything reducing the "confusion" or as I prefer to call it,
inconsistencies.
One simple Bug Fix:
Add Author Identity to the Output Summary with a reference to Checking
Signing Practices per RFC5585.
Thanks
--
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