Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-----Original Message-----
Here is the correct message link:
Status and direction
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2009q1/011194.html
That message (a) was sent six months before ADSP was published,
and (b) was written at a time when ADSP still made use of "i=".
If you take the time to read the text in RFC5617, it doesn't use
"i=" at all.
Since day one POLICY anchored off the ODID in the same way Domainkeys,
which has inherent support for POLICY, anchored off the ODID.
There were suggestions as Barry noted due to the ambiguity (which
remains today) for what i= should be and that included i=From and thus
possibly it could be the feed for policy. But we also talking the
ideas of extension modeling and outputs to pass to them. It was the
beginning of reducing it to one only - signer and only for trust
purposes, excluding the needs for ADSP.
For all intent and purposes, this message can be reposted today
and still bee relevant,
....except that it doesn't cover what the working
group actually published.
Exactly, which is why we still have the issues today.
4. *Aim 4871bis at incorporating what we've learned since 4871.*
If that results in a document that can and should move to
Draft Standard, we'll do that. If it does not, then 4871bis
will go to Proposed Standard, and it will take another
round of work to move up the standards track.
Sounds like precisely what we've done.
I take the position that 4871bis does not incorporate what we have learned
since 4871. If it did, these concerns would not be on-going.
--
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