> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim- > boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of John Levine > Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 6:40 AM > To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Cc: barryle...@computer.org > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Moving on to ADSP - was RE: Handling the > errataafter the consensus call > > >I'm not sure what my opinion is on that last point, but on the first > >point I think it's best to define an identifier that's specifically > >for ADSP's use, if we want that function. Some signers may give that > >tag the same value they give i=, and there's no harm done. Some > >signers may use a different value, which would demonstrate the wisdom > >of separating them. > > Seems like a reasonable way to avoid the i= fight. If there's interest, > I can whip up a new ADSP draft with an r= tag. >
I view introducing a new tag at this point as problematic. Using i= or even going to using d= does not require any changes to current DKIM signing implementations. Introducing a new tag means that implementers are at the mercy of the timeframes that vendors choose to change how they sign DKIM. As I have said before, I can personally accept using d= because of how we chose to implement DKIM signing for our domains. I lean towards i= for ADSP because I believe it gives others benefits. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
