On 05/04/2011 11:03 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Thomas [mailto:mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 10:54 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net; ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Output summary - proposing ODID "Originating Domain
Identity"
The advice that a verifier can ignore the "l=" tag was in RFC4871, so
copying it to RFC4871bis doesn't seem like a problem to me.
You can't ignore the *tag*. That's the normative change. Whether you
ignore the *output* is another matter. But of course you can't ignore
the output because l= is "internal". Yet another problem.
But RFC4871 also said you could ignore the tag, so I don't understand the
distinction you're making.
Like I said, i only looked at this for a few minutes -- 4871 is wrong or
sloppy
here too. But my other objection still stands: with the procrustean "output"
as it stand right now, an upper level entity would not be able to ignore
signatures with l= because that's "internal".
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html