Barry,
Sorry for being so confused, but I'm hoping you can clear up some questions:
DKIM Chair wrote:
> Recent discussion has brought up the point that, while we had consensus in
> 4871
> about i=,
Recent discussion also brought up the point that this assertion was factually
incorrect and that there is no documentation to substantiate it. Yet it
appears
to be the foundation of your analysis.
> We need to separate these two points, that which is errata and that
> which goes beyond that.
...
> 1. We need to close on the errata by making updates and clarifications that
> are
> limited to what's needed to fix the errata. Any re-thinking about what i=
> *should* be is out of scope for *this* effort.
What, specifically, do you believe "goes beyond that" in the Errata
draft?
And what's your basis for believing that?
What specific changes are you suggesting?
> Thought 2: If we're going to change the meaning of i=, that *will* cause
> problems
> with ADSP, as written, and so ADSP should wait until we've decided what to do
> with i=.
...
> 2. Proceed with ADSP as written, which has rough consensus.
You left out a key, alternative consideration, for ADSP, that it should
be
changed to use d=, rather than i=. With a clarification of the roles of d= and
i=, as DKIM signature output, relying on i= by ADSP can reasonably be subject
to
re-evaluation. Was your omission intentional?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
