Re: [ietf-dkim] Moving on to ADSP - was RE: Handling the errata after the consensus call

[Michael Adkins]

John Levine wrote:
>> I'm not sure what my opinion is on that last point, but on the first
>> point I think it's best to define an identifier that's specifically
>> for ADSP's use, if we want that function.  Some signers may give that
>> tag the same value they give i=, and there's no harm done.  Some
>> signers may use a different value, which would demonstrate the wisdom
>> of separating them.
>>     
>
> Seems like a reasonable way to avoid the i= fight. If there's interest,
> I can whip up a new ADSP draft with an r= tag.
>
> R's,
> John
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
>   
I would be interested. If ADSP isn't supposed to be part of the base
spec, there's no reason folks interested in using it can't add a
specific additional tag to implement it.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html