Responding to Dave's, Doug's, and John's replies (I'll get to Jon's later)...
Dave says... >> Recent discussion has brought up the point that, while we had consensus in >> 4871 about i=, > > Recent discussion also brought up the point that this assertion was factually > incorrect and that there is no documentation to substantiate it. Yet it > appears to be the foundation of your analysis. It's not factually incorrect, but I think you misunderstand it. The documentation to substantiate it is that RFC 4871 went through working-group last call, IETF last call, and IESG processing with the text that's there. What we see now, though, is that not everyone had/has the same understanding of what that text meant. Anyway, Dave, I think we're just talking about semantics, here; see below. Dave says... >> We need to separate these two points, that which is errata and that >> which goes beyond that. > ... >> 1. We need to close on the errata by making updates and clarifications that >> are limited to what's needed to fix the errata. Any re-thinking about what >> i= *should* be is out of scope for *this* effort. > > What, specifically, do you believe "goes beyond that" in the Errata > draft? And what's your basis for believing that? > > What specific changes are you suggesting? I'm not suggesting that there's anything wrong with the errata draft. I'm addressing the extended discussion of i=, and what it could be and what it might be, and I'm saying that the chairs are setting a boundary here: any change to how i= is used is beyond the scope of errata (and into the scope of Jon's comment). I never said that the errata draft crosses that boundary; I think it does not. Dave says... >> Thought 2: If we're going to change the meaning of i=, that *will* cause >> problems with ADSP, as written, and so ADSP should wait until we've decided >> what to do with i=. > ... >> 2. Proceed with ADSP as written, which has rough consensus. > > You left out a key, alternative consideration, for ADSP, that it should > be changed to use d=, rather than i=. With a clarification of the roles of d= > and i=, as DKIM signature output, relying on i= by ADSP can reasonably be > subject to re-evaluation. Was your omission intentional? Doug says... > Changing ADSP to use d= rather than i= restores single signature compatibility > with RFC 4871. :^) My omission was not intentional. Yes, I think that given the recent discussion, it's quite fair to see if the working group wants to re-open that issue in ADSP before we go forward with it. John says... > Dave's draft clarifies the meaning and use of i=. It's time for a last > call on it. Stephen was planning to do that on Monday. I wanted to get the "status and direction" message out first. I think we're all actually in agreement here. Barry -- Barry Leiba, DKIM working group chair ([email protected]) http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/ _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
