On Monday, February 19, 2018 08:42:24 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 3:49 AM, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > > Seems fine, although I've long found 7601 one of the most mysterious RFCs > > ever published. > > Why's that? (And why wasn't this mentioned when 7601 or any of its > antecedents was in last call? No errata?) > > > The IANA registry says that there is a dkim header.i property defined > > in RFC7601, but the only place it appears in 7601 is in examples in > > Appendix B. > > 7601 says: > > DKIM results are reported using a ptype of "header". The property, > however, represents one of the tags found in the DKIM-Signature > header field rather than a distinct header field. > > So "header.d" means the d= tag, "header.i" means the i= tag, etc. Those > are the only two identifiers DKIM evaluates, so they're the only ones that > were ever registered. > > 7601bis loosens the language about what's appropriate to send downstream, > from being only authenticated identifiers to also allowing other related > stuff that downstream agents might want to use or log. That means things > like "s" and "a" are now in play.
Any feedback on the patch I sent you to add them to 7601bis? Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
