On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What's the added value in covering AAR[n] twice, once with its b= and once > without? > > Sorry, that got out before my thought was fully formed. What benefit is there to covering AAR with both the AMS and the AS? It seems to me the AMS is much cleaner (in the sense of ARC being a layer atop DKIM) if it is purely a renamed DKIM signature with an instance number. Put another way, the apparent intent here is to require that things be generated in a specific order (AAR, then AMS, then AS) but it seems to me there's no obvious benefit to imposing that constraint given that AS is supposed to cover everything anyway. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
