Re: [ietf-dkim] When i= domain != d= domain

At 3:01 PM -0700 4/25/06, Douglas Otis wrote: ,--- | d= The domain of the signing entity (plain-text; REQUIRED). This |is the domain that will be queried for the public key. This |domain MUST be the same as or a parent domain of the "i=" tag |(the signing identity, as described belo

Re: [ietf-dkim] When i= domain != d= domain

> It seems defining the state of the signature rather than possible > remedies would be more useful. This makes sense to me as well. -- Arvel ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

Re: [ietf-dkim] When i= domain != d= domain

> It seems defining the state of the signature rather than possible > remedies would be more useful. phoffman> Fully agree. arvel> This makes sense to me as well. So is there consensus that this change belongs in -02? eric ___ NOTE WELL: This lis

Re: [ietf-dkim] When i= domain != d= domain

Eric Allman wrote: > It seems defining the state of the signature rather than possible > remedies would be more useful. phoffman> Fully agree. arvel> This makes sense to me as well. So is there consensus that this change belongs in -02? sounds good to me. Mike ___

Re: [ietf-dkim] When i= domain != d= domain

Eric Allman wrote: >> > It seems defining the state of the signature rather than possible >> > remedies would be more useful. > > phoffman> Fully agree. > > arvel> This makes sense to me as well. > > So is there consensus that this change belongs in -02? I agree with the change suggested by Doug'

Re: [ietf-dkim] When i= domain != d= domain

Arvel Hathcock wrote: > It seems defining the state of the signature rather than possible > remedies would be more useful. This makes sense to me as well. +1 d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking ___ NOTE WELL: This li

Re: [ietf-dkim] When i= domain != d= domain

I think the rules say that only a WG Chair can declare consensus, but it sure sounds to me like we have it. I'll make the change as soon as I'm given the go. eric ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rule

Re: [ietf-dkim] When i= domain != d= domain

Eric Allman wrote: I think the rules say that only a WG Chair can declare consensus, but it sure sounds to me like we have it. I'll make the change as soon as I'm given the go. Sorry folks, I've been mega-swamped this week so don't have the context. I didn't notice objections so it seems li

RE: [ietf-dkim] When i= domain != d= domain

In all cases we should be defining status of an event rather than conclusions about potential remedies -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Eric Allman Sent: Fri 4/28/2006 4:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] When i= domain