Eliot Lear wrote: > I think perhaps it would help, Dave, if you could step through the > ramifications of your concerns.
I don't understand your question. What is it about the Introduction to the Errata that is not sufficiently clear or complete? You appear to be asking about the ramifications of being non-interoperable, and I know you don't really mean that. > What it doesn't say is how the confusion > manifests itself. Can you please clearly do so with examples? You need an example of the problems that can ensue from having one side of a protocol exchange consider one attribute to be the sole output and another side consider two attributes or a different one attribute to be the output? Really? >> If the UAID is not the same as the address in the From: >> header field, the mail system SHOULD take pains to ensure that the >> actual UAID is clear to the reader. > > If you are going to go to lengths to separate the Identity Assessor from > other parts of the system, it makes it more confusing when you continue > the old phrasing of "mail system" above. Which mail system? Who is > responsible for that? I presume you mean the signer, since the signer > is the one who inserts the UAID. damn. damn. damn. yes it does make it more confusing. yes I meant to change it. grrrr. sorry. I believe the intent of that sentence is something like "receiving MUA", but on reflection, I'm not sure I fully understand what this requirement really is or what is considered reasonable for satisfying it. And I mean that as a specification-clarity issue, not an user interface philosophy issue. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
