On 5/4/2011 3:11 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
Dave, don't you want receivers to follow RFC5585 design? If so, then
RFC 5585 is not a 'design'. It has a diagram that describes an overall service.
Also, the scope of its description is much larger than what is covered by the
DKIM Signing specification.
what can't we get the Outputs described for that design to work? From
what I can see, there are four variables:
status REQUIRED
SDID REQUIRED, MANDATORY for Trust Identity Assessor (see 2.7)
AUID OPTIONAL, see 3.11
ODID OPTIONAL for Checking Signing Process (see RFC5585)
We have the REQUIRED/MANDATORY identity you want. But you have the
others too.
What is technically wrong with this?
It goes beyond the Update the working group and the IETF approved.
It also seems to confuse protocol issues with implementation issues.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html