Dave CROCKER wrote: > > Steve Atkins wrote: >> Given that the RHS of i= is either identical or a subdomain of d= it's >> nonsensical >> to consider i= more stable than d=, as i= must change if d= does. > > In fact, other than the right-hand root of the i= string which must match the > d= > string, nothing in the i= value must exist anywhere except in the message > containing it. It's difficult to get much less stable than that.
i= can be a subdomain of d=. In fact, it is arguably *more* stable as i= can remain the same while moving d= up in the hierarchy. So somebody please inform Dave that he should re-read 4871 section 3.5. > This thread now seems to be re-discussing the working group decision that > has already been approved both by the working group and the IESG. This hasn't been approved by the IESG. > Since the exchange with Bill that replaced "reputation" with > "assessment", I > have not seen any suggestions for changes to the text proposed for addition > to > the draft. I suggest that any normative changes placed on the assessor module are outside of the scope of the DKIM working group. Since Dave has /From: [email protected]/h:j, he still won't see any suggestions. > Have we converged on the text or does anyone have specific changes they are > seeking? No. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
