It does. -----Original Message----- From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 12:01 PM To: Adkins, Michael Cc: DKIM IETF WG Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft Errata on RFC 4871
Adkins, Michael wrote: > 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. If I'm understanding the exchange you two are having, I think it means suggesting two changes to the draft Errata: 1. For 10 and 11, change UAID to be SDID. 2. Add text about the use of i= stating that it's use for assessment goes beyond using d= and is MUST be based on additional knowledge of its creation that is outside the specification. Does this reflect what you two are implying? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
