> -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Thomas [mailto:m...@mtcc.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 12:13 PM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: dcroc...@bbiw.net; Dave CROCKER; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Output summary - proposing ODID "Originating Domain > Identity" > > I agree that it's an implementation issue. All of this is. But choosing > a single "output" formally makes that a no-no for the assessor, which > is a silly outcome. And it's but one silly outcome. What of the h= values? > How does an assessor know which ones were signed? That's a layering > violation according to -bis. Silly.
There's no proscription against providing those details if the verifier wants to export them. The document is saying there is "one" required output, not "only one" output; it's a minimum. And I think it's pretty clear about that. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
