On 2/2/09 8:48 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > Eliot Lear wrote: >> I think perhaps it would help, Dave, if you could step through the >> ramifications of your concerns. > > I don't understand your question. What is it about the Introduction > to the Errata that is not sufficiently clear or complete? > > You appear to be asking about the ramifications of being > non-interoperable, and I know you don't really mean that.
That's right. What I mean is this: what is the case that gets you to non-interoperability? How is i= used such that it breaks things? You write in your introduction: > For DKIM to be interoperable and useful, signer and consumer must > share the same understanding of the details about the name. and: > The DKIM specification fails to clearly define what is "payload" to be > delivered to a consuming module, versus what is internal and merely in > support of achieving payload delivery. I know what you're referring to, but I don't see the interoperability failure. Where does interpretation of i= lead to something bad happening/ Clearly you've been working into problems, so please explain in some additional detail. Eliot _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
