> -----Original Message----- > From: John Levine [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 9:10 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Open issues in RFC4871bis > > >2.3. Identity > > > > A person, role, or organization. In the context of DKIM, examples > > include the author, the author's organization, an ISP along the > > handling path, an independent trust assessment service, and a mailing > > list operator. > > The current language looks fine to me.
Some people are talking about changing the wording here. I think it would be helpful to frame that part of the conversation. The text cited above as 2.3 is not new. It reached working group consensus already because it was part of RFC5672. Thus, its presence in RFC4871bis is already effectively approved. Any changes to it require new consensus. My citing it isn't introducing anything new; anyone that is proposing changes to it has to garner consensus to make any changes stick. Similarly, the proposal to drop "i=" and all text that refers to it is a change from everything we've approved so far, and requires working group consensus to make that change. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
