Re: [ietf-dkim] errata revision: opaque

[Jim Fenton]

Dave CROCKER wrote: darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn darn definition of AUID is screwed up. didn't mean to change it. so... Dave CROCKER wrote: 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. New: A single value that identifies the agent or user on behalf of whom the SDID has taken responsibility. For DKIM processing, the domain name portion of the AUID has only basic domain name semantics; any possible owner-specific semantics is outside the scope of DKIM. Whew.  Thanks for the revision.  I'm happy with this and the other definitions in your original message, although I'd suggest s/semantics is/semantics are/ Just for completeness, I'll point out that some might feel that the (indirect) statement that the domain name portion of the AUID has domain name semantics is too strong.  The subdomain portion (the portion, if any, that is a subdomain of the SDID) doesn't need to be an actual domain at all. I'm not sure it's necessary to clutter the definition with this detail, however.  I'm happy with it the way it is. -Jim

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html