Hi SM, Anyone can propose such an update. By the rules established in RFC5451, it needs to be modified via publication of an RFC that passes through the IESG. The DKIM WG could do it, or so could an individual submitter with sponsorship of an AD (or equivalent).
I consider this a low priority though, because after RFC4871bis publishes, signers will gradually stop including "i=", which means verifiers will either switch to producing A-R fields with "header.d" instead of "header.i", or they will still produce the default value of "i=" for their consumers which is probably what they do now for "d="-only signatures anyway. -MSK ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of SM [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 2:25 PM To: Hector Santos Cc: IETF DKIM WG Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value) Hi Hector, At 11:18 01-04-2011, Hector Santos wrote: >Off hand, and I have to go back, I believe seeing some systems using >Authetication-Results to always include a i= as part of its A-R header >result whether it was defined or not and when not, a default value is >displayed. For example, this is the A-R result for my signature into >this IETF-DKIM list: > > Authentication-Results: sbh17.songbird.com; > dkim=pass (1024-bit key) [email protected] [snip] >Does that mean, a proposal to remove i= in DKIM-BASE, would imply an >update to the A-R draft is necessary? RFC 5451 is a proposed standard. It is not a product of the DKIM WG. It's up to the author of that RFC to see whether an update is necessary. Regards, -sm _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
