At 17:06 26-01-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote: >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.
In my opinion that cannot be done through an erratum. >Common interpretation of the document is that it *already* provides >two identities. The Errata merely makes clear their nature and priority. The draft Errata does not update Section 1.1 of RFC 4871 which discusses about Signing Identity. Section 3.5 of RFC 4871 defines "d=" as the domain of the signing entity. And the relevant paragraph goes on saying that the domain that will be queried for the public key. It does not mention whether it's only for the retrieval mechanism or if it can also be read as an identity. If we were having a wider discussion, I would ask about the purpose of key granularity (g= in Section 3.6.1) when "d=" is considered as the "stronger" identity. >Errata aren't allowed to fix something by changing it? Based on the first paragraph that I quoted and the current discussion, the answer in this case is no. Regards, -sm _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
