Just to be clear, I was proposing that we close 1399 as a duplicate of 1519, not the other way around.
-Jim Douglas Otis wrote: > > On Mar 1, 2008, at 6:55 AM, Jim Fenton wrote: > >> I'd like to shorten the list of open issues, so I'll start with the >> issues that I consider clearly moot in the ASP draft (-ssp-03) or >> that are duplicates of other issues. Hopefully these are >> non-controversial. >> >> WG chairs, I'd like to ask that you direct the closure of the >> following issues, subject to WG consensus, of course: >> >> >>> 1399 clarify i= vs. SSP >> >> Duplicate of 1519. > > Disagree. > > Issue 1399 suggests i= might be included within an "all" signed > policy, however lacks details. > > Issue 1519 notes SSP policy requirements conflicts with RFC 4871 and > recommends against restrictions on the i= parameter for unrestricted > keys. > > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
