We've had a bit of discussion in this thread (and elsewhere) about this, but I need to get a clear view of consensus. Doug agrees with Hector's note, below, and Dave and Murray do not. I'd like to hear from others within the next few days, about whether you think we should make the change Hector requests or not. I need to get a sense of whether there's significant support for it. Again, please keep arguments to a minimum, so it's clearer to me what the consensus is -- we've had the arguments going for a while now.
Barry, as chair On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Hector Santos <hsan...@isdg.net> wrote: > Ah come on guys! We all know what the problems are, we know the sides > and what colors we wear. Is it possible to come up with a compromise > to solve this conflicts once and for all? > > Dave, don't you want receivers to follow RFC5585 design? If so, then > 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? > > -- > Sincerely > > Hector Santos > http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html