On 5/4/2011 3:11 PM, Hector Santos wrote: > Dave, don't you want receivers to follow RFC5585 design? If so, then
RFC 5585 is not a 'design'. It has a diagram that describes an overall service. Also, the scope of its description is much larger than what is covered by the DKIM Signing specification. > what can't we get the Outputs described for that design to work? From > what I can see, there are four variables: > > status REQUIRED > SDID REQUIRED, MANDATORY for Trust Identity Assessor (see 2.7) > AUID OPTIONAL, see 3.11 > ODID OPTIONAL for Checking Signing Process (see RFC5585) > > We have the REQUIRED/MANDATORY identity you want. But you have the > others too. > > What is technically wrong with this? It goes beyond the Update the working group and the IETF approved. It also seems to confuse protocol issues with implementation issues. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
