> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:ietf-dkim- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba > Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 3:20 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Handling the errata after the consensus call > > The discussion seems to be straying beyond certain useful > boundaries... as Stephen says, let's keep it within those. So, in > particular, with my "participant" hat on: > > It seems to me that the relevant point isn't whether you do or don't > like ADSP and whether you will or won't deploy it... but, rather, that > we agree on the details of it. If you're a signer and you don't like > ADSP, you won't publish ADSP information. If you're a verifier and > you don't like ADSP, you won't retrieve ADSP information. > > So what matters is that we agree on what the ADSP information says and > means, and that we agree on the interpretation by a verifier of its > absence. >
Starting with your last point first.... there can only be one interpretation by a verifier of its (published ADSP record) absence...... the signing domain does not implement ADSP. With regard to the other discussion, for the implementations I'm engaged in, d= works fine for ADSP. I recognize that for other implementations using i= provides additional value. I therefore would support keeping the reference string (domain part or HRS of i=) as i=. The fact that the errata discusses opaqueness for DKIM base does not preclude using RHS of i= for ADSP implementation. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
