Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
> But more importantly, if you're thinking these things would truly have
> *legal* ramification, then my guess is no "good-guys" would touch signing
> with 4474 with a ten foot pole, ever. Do DKIM email signatures have such
> legal implications?
>
IANAL, but I sure hope not. It's certainly not what we intended.
But I'm not convinced (yet) that this is what 4474 is trying to do.
And I'm definitely not convinced that just because something in
my namespace happens to superficially look like a e.164 address
that I'm bound to some different standard. Would a rot13 on the
e.164-like thingie be sufficient to avoid those legal implications?
I'm sorry, but the implicit complexity just makes my head hurt.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Sip mailing list https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip
This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip
Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
