Jon says... > 4871 is in my opinion as an author clear about i=. You have but to read it and > the informative notes. One might think it's amorphous, but it's at least an > explicit amorphousness. It survived a rough consensus, at least implicitly. I > will summarize 4871 as "signers can do whatever makes sense to them, receivers > have to live with that." If Aleister Crowley were around, he would have said > that the law around i= is "do what thou wilt."
Do you think that the text in Dave's errata draft keeps that sense, whether or not you think it provides useful clarification? Do you think that the text in Dave's errata draft provides useful clarification? Do you object to the text in Dave's errata draft? Jon says, along with the rest of the note... > This same principle holds for other people who aren't happy with the precise > semantics of i=, d=, g=, or anything else. Make a header and sign it, or stick > a new field into the DKIM header. It's *that* *simple*! > > If we want to clarify the i= semantics in errata, sure. Whatever. But all the > people who want i= to be something it isn't are much better served by making > what they want than by trying to pretend that i= is the same shape as the peg > they are holding in their hand. It isn't. Make a new hole to fit that peg, and > we will all be much happier. I think that's exactly what I said in my points 3 and 4, including the part (in point 3) about pushing such changes into extensions, rather than twiddling with i=. Again, it sounds like we're in agreement, here, on how to proceed. 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
