Your notes in 10 and 11 are correct in that UAID should be replaced with SDID, with one caveat. If you can't assume that the UAID is even an identity, there is no reason to warn the reader that the UAID is different from the From address or point it out.
The only cases where the handling mail system would want to follow the Errata as currently written are when they have reason to believe that the UAID is the responsible identity. -----Original Message----- From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 11:10 AM To: Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: Adkins, Michael; DKIM IETF WG Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft Errata on RFC 4871 Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > The few large cases are > > 1. Exceptions to the general rule > > 2. Useful only when backed with some out of band discussion about > these .. How does (or should) this affect the proposed Errata specification? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
