I there a meaning given in the spec? It just says (from memory) that it must follow a specific format for the signature to pass. There may have been an intent here (authenticated user) but I don't think the spec gives i= a strong meaning.
I could use [email protected] d=mipassoc.org with a from: [email protected], and have dkim verification pass, no? PS: I'm arguing not for the sake of arguing, but being lazy, I prefer to do with what there is than what has to be built. PPS: "Everyone knows bananas have the best reputation" - pointy hair boss. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave CROCKER" <[email protected]> To: "Franck Martin" <[email protected]> Cc: "IETF DKIM WG" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, 6 April, 2011 1:48:06 PM Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value) On 4/5/2011 6:40 PM, Franck Martin wrote: > 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? How is a receiver ever going to know that this new meaning applies? There is an installed base if i= generation and consumption. Changing i= later creates an amiguity with that installed usage. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
