Steve Atkins wrote: > Given that the RHS of i= is either identical or a subdomain of d= it's > nonsensical > to consider i= more stable than d=, as i= must change if d= does.
In fact, other than the right-hand root of the i= string which must match the d= string, nothing in the i= value must exist anywhere except in the message containing it. It's difficult to get much less stable than that. BUT... This thread now seems to be re-discussing the working group decision that has already been approved both by the working group and the IESG. The goal, right now, is only supposed to be to agree on some non-normative clarification text for the Introduction. Since the exchange with Bill that replaced "reputation" with "assessment", I have not seen any suggestions for changes to the text proposed for addition to the draft. Have we converged on the text or does anyone have specific changes they are seeking? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html