>> So if we keep i= as is in the spec, we can conclude the standard process and >> give a meaning of i= outside this spec in another RFC?
No, it's not backward compatible. My signatures all have a fully compliant i= value which is not an e-mail address. (Take a look.) Fortunately, the DKIM spec is upward compatible, and we can invent new fields. So, if people think that a "real ID" assertion would be of value, write up a draft and it can be an experimental add-on to DKIM. I say experimental since we have, as far as I can tell, no actual experience with such a thing. Regards, John Levine, [email protected], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
