On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:40:18AM -0000, 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.
um, I read Jim's draft to use r= for "reputation" and not for ADSP. So specify a new tag for ADSP. -- Jeff Macdonald [email protected] _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
