-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 13, 2009, at 9:47 PM, DKIM Chair wrote:
> 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?
Let me say first that I am a firm believer that if people are having
trouble understanding something, then it's not clear. It needs to be
re-explained.
I'm an author, and I have no trouble understanding it. Any fault I
must bear is in the communication end, not the understanding end.
Yes, I think the errata makes sense. I *hope* it provides a useful
clarification, but I'm not the one to ask. I'm partially responsible
for the existing not-entirely-clear text. You have to ask someone else
about that. I think it explains it better, but I understood the first
one. Lastly, no, I don't object to the text. I think we should pass it
and move on.
>
>
> 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.
>
I hope so. I think that a 4871bis document will do no good. I think
that if ADSP wants to use i=, it needs to accept the way i= is, or use
a new tag that is what it is -- or use d=. I don't care which. I think
it's useful either way, myself.
I hope we agree, but this whole discussion is about things that are
clear to me.
Jon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Universal 2.6.3
Charset: US-ASCII
wj8DBQFJlxzIsTedWZOD3gYRAjO8AJ9zOWN1GDWK/LpcCok1SQFvbRNhegCgr+vf
8jJlUUGKYjT7Djoov+Aouao=
=+Yvi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
