John Levine:
> >7. RFC4871 Section 2.10 Agent or User Identifier (AUID)
> >
> > Old:
> > A single, opaque value that identifies the agent or user on behalf
> > of whom the SDID has taken responsibility.
> >
> > New:
> > A single domain name that identifies the agent or user on behalf
> > of whom the SDID has taken responsibility. For DKIM
> > processing, the name has only basic domain name semantics; any
> > possible owner-specific semantics is outside the scope of DKIM.
>
> While I'd think it would be dandy if the i= were a domain name, I
> suspect I'd be outvoted, so perhaps it would be better to say
> something like this:
>
> A string that identifies the agent or user on behalf of whom
> the SDID has taken responsibility. The string has the syntax
> of an e-mail address where the domain part is the same as the
> SDID or a subdomain of the SDID. For DKIM processing, the AUID
> has no semantics beyond validation that it complies with the
> syntactic rules; any possible owner-specific semantics is
> outside the scope of DKIM.
+1
I wasn't aware of a proposal to change i= into domain form, but
I must admit that could not attend the entire meeting over the
phone.
Wietse
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
