Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote: > Don't get me wrong, I just wanted to demonstrate that, IF we follow the > logic of not crossing protocol boundaries strictly, THEN communicating > the d= payload /without additional information/, we > > * either enforce upper layers to violate layers or > * in advance we discourage in advance the design and development of > a number of useful applications that otherwise could have been > built on top of DKIM. > > > In the archives I found exactly this same concern and discussion, see > for example the contribution of Jim: > http://www.mail-archive.com/ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org/msg11105.html
Indeed, the chickens have come to roost. This was ill-conceived at the time of the errata, and it is ill-conceived here. It is yet another reason why I believe that the protocol described in 4871bis only bears passing resemblance to 4871 and interoperation will be purely coincidental. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
