Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > Jim Fenton wrote: >> Nevertheless, what's in the specification represents working group rough >> consensus, in connection with issues 1399 and 1519. There have been >> opportunities in WG Last Call and IETF Last Call to reconsider that >> decision. > > So, Jim, I commend your effort at retrieval specific references. > > Certainly ADSP needs to say what string it is using. > > Unfortunately your presenting citations raises the question of whether > they resolve the current question. My own conclusion is that they do > not, for several reasons: > > 1. 1399 received no substantive discussion and was then declared > redundant with 1519. So citing it winds up confusing the current > discussion.
Issue 1399 was open for over 4 months, surely enough time for anyone who wished to comment to do so. If there is a requirement for a specific amount of substantive discussion on an issue, please cite it. > > 2. 1519 had nothing to do with the choice between d= vs. i=. It > asked a very different question about i=. > > 3. One could argue that all discussion "assumed" i=, but that's a > very different claim that one that says we considered d= vs. i= and > chose i=. In message http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2008q3/010582.html , Stephen summarizes the issues around issue 1519 well, notes that the draft includes matching the local-part of i=, and invites further discussion. There was none, so the issue was closed about 10 days later. Since d= does not have a local-part, it would not seem that it qualifies. -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
