-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Thomas [mailto:mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 12:13 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net; Dave CROCKER;
ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Output summary - proposing ODID "Originating Domain
Identity"
I agree that it's an implementation issue. All of this is. But choosing
a single "output" formally makes that a no-no for the assessor, which
is a silly outcome. And it's but one silly outcome. What of the h= values?
How does an assessor know which ones were signed? That's a layering
violation according to -bis. Silly.
There's no proscription against providing those details if the verifier wants
to export them. The document is saying there is "one" required output, not
"only one" output; it's a minimum. And I think it's pretty clear about that.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html