Jim,
Jim Fenton wrote: >> 1. 1399 received no substantive discussion and was then declared >> redundant with 1519. So citing it winds up confusing the current >> discussion. > > Issue 1399 was open for over 4 months, surely enough time for anyone who > wished to comment to do so. If there is a requirement for a specific > amount of substantive discussion on an issue, please cite it. Since 1399 has no discussion of i= vs. d=, and since it was declared redundant with 1519, the issue is moot. It's irrelevant to the current discussion. >> 2. 1519 had nothing to do with the choice between d= vs. i=. It >> asked a very different question about i=. >> >> 3. One could argue that all discussion "assumed" i=, but that's a >> very different claim that one that says we considered d= vs. i= and >> chose i=. > > In message http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2008q3/010582.html , > Stephen summarizes the issues around issue 1519 well, notes that the > draft includes matching the local-part of i=, and invites further > discussion. There was none, so the issue was closed about 10 days > later. Since d= does not have a local-part, it would not seem that it > qualifies. You think that failing to discuss an topic that was outside the scope of the cited issue and, in fact, was not raised then, is somehow relevant to the current discussion? I don't understand that logic. More importantly, it seems a distraction from the current discussion: There is a real problem and it needs real resolution that the current specification does not provide. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
