We've had a bit of discussion in this thread (and elsewhere) about
this, but I need to get a clear view of consensus. Doug agrees with
Hector's note, below, and Dave and Murray do not. I'd like to hear
from others within the next few days, about whether you think we
should make the change Hector requests or not. I need to get a sense
of whether there's significant support for it. Again, please keep
arguments to a minimum, so it's clearer to me what the consensus is --
we've had the arguments going for a while now.
Barry, as chair
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Hector Santos <hsantos(_at_)isdg(_dot_)net>
wrote:
Ah come on guys! We all know what the problems are, we know the sides
and what colors we wear. Is it possible to come up with a compromise
to solve this conflicts once and for all?
Dave, don't you want receivers to follow RFC5585 design? If so, then
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?
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html