SM wrote: > At 02:41 26-01-2009, Stephen Farrell wrote: >> Firstly, do we have rough consensus on the substance of >> the erratum? > > As Dave pointed out in his draft, there is some confusion about > identities in RFC 4871. If this is a clarification of the consensus > at the date of publication of the RFC, then it can take the Errata path.
I believe that clear definitions, relationship and usage of the two values was never fully developed as a working group consensus. Hence the need to do it now. Many participants had their individual understandings, but we didn't specify a common one. > RFC 4871 defines one signing identity. If the changes proposed in The document uses that specific term ambiguously. Although, yes, there is a bit of text that is quite explicit about the definition, usage elsewhere in the document is conflicting. > this draft are approved, DKIM will provide two identities. By doing Common interpretation of the document is that it *already* provides two identities. The Errata merely makes clear their nature and priority. > so, the draft is introducing concepts which some may see as > formalizing what is in RFC 4871 while others may consider them as > new. Although the proposed input (d= and i=) for the Assessor module > may not affect existing implementations, the draft changes the > definition of these tags. Errata aren't allowed to fix something by changing it? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
