On 3/25/09 10:28 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > Eliot Lear wrote: >>> 8. RFC4871 Section 2.11 Identity Assessor > ... >>> New: >>> The name of the module that consumes DKIM's mandatory >>> payload, the >>> responsible Signing Domain Identifier (SDID). Other DKIM >>> values >>> can also be delivered this module; however this additional >>> activity >>> is outside the scope of the DKIM signature specification. >>> >> >> Replace "Other DKIM values" to "Other information". >> >> My logic: what the assessor consumes beyond the SDID is outside the >> scope of the spec. > > > Is your concern that the presence of the DKIM qualifier could be taken > to /exclude/ other values?
Yes. > > > The reason for saying DKIM, here, was to make sure the reader knows > it's ok for other DKIM-Sig values to be delivered. Without the DKIM > reference, the sentence would seem to be so broad as to have truly > nothing to do with DKIM. My concern is this: what do identity assessors use today? An IP address. They might want that tidbid of information as well. How, then, not to exclude it? Eliot _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
