The stability part I agree with. For the second area of interest, are you saying the verifier would only find it interesting if i= was the same as the user's (for some definition of 'user') email address?
Dave CROCKER wrote: > but, ummm..., this really would be a functional enhancement, and so it ought > to > be discussed as part of the broader RFC revision effort, and certainly under > a > different thread, such as the Subject I'm using here... > > d/ > > Tony Hansen wrote: > >> A side conversation with several people generated these two areas of >> interest to a verifier about the i= identifiers being generated by a signer: >> >> 1) Are the values stable? That is, will the same value be used by the >> signer each time a message is signed on behalf of a particular >> user/agent? Examples of stable values are >> [email protected] (such as AUIDs that use the same >> namespace as their users' email addresses), >> [email protected] (such as AUIDs based on the users' >> internal user IDs), and [email protected] (such as >> AUIDs based on a hash of the user name). Examples of unstable values >> would be ones that incorporate additional information within the i= >> value that is time varying, but is still able to be mapped to a single >> user's/agent's identity. >> >> 2) For stable values, is the namespace the same as the users' email >> addresses? That is, is the stable value the same as the user's email >> address? >> >> One suggestion made was to use key record t= value to communicate this >> information. >> >> Tony Hansen >> [email protected] >> >> Michael Adkins wrote: >> >>> I think there will be cases where a signer chooses to make their UAID >>> semantics known to assessors specifically for assessment purposes. How >>> the signer might communicate that to the assessors is out of scope for >>> the moment I think. I would assume that, for starters, the signers would >>> approach individual assessors/mailbox providers. If it proved useful and >>> was worth doing on a larger scale, then we could figure out a way to >>> make the signer's preference automatically known to assessors. >>> >>> >>> Siegel, Ellen wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> A question regarding the notes in 10 and 11: >>>>> >>>>> Would it make more sense to suggest that the mail system make the UAID >>>>> clear to the reader if its the identity whose reputation was used to >>>>> deliver the message, and make the SDID clear to the reader otherwise? >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> >>>> [> ] >>>> Given that the semantics of the UAID are inherently opaque, how >>>> would you suggest that the mail system make the assessment? I like >>>> the concept, but don't see how it can be implemented given the >>>> defined syntax/semantics. >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to >> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html >> >> > > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
