SM wrote: > At 17:06 26-01-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote: >> 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.
That section also does not tie the term to a particular tag. So what is the problem with not changing the section? > 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. The proposed errata changes the text. So I'm not understanding what point you are making here. >> 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. I don't understand. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
