>> Except that the UAID might or might not be an e-mail address. The one >> on this messgage isn't. > > So, for clarity, can you (or someone) call out what you think is > the impact, if any, for ADSP, caused by this proposed change to > 4871.
Nothing. ADSP's attempt to force i= to be an identifier that is an e-mail address was wrong before, and the errata doesn't change that. I've put a note pointing that out in the proposed next draft, with a kludgy workaround being a second signature with no i= field. If it were up to me, I'd remove all the references to i= from ADSP, but there seem to be people who believe that it will be useful. Regards, John Levine, [email protected], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
