[ietf-dkim] draft Errata on RFC 4871

[Adkins, Michael]

Yes, we are in agreement about opacity.  I would even agree about the
'often irrelevant' part.  It's the few large cases where it's a good
solution that I would like to make sure we can still use it.

And I didn't really mean for my comment on the errata to turn into a
discussion of this topic, so if this isn't a good time for it we can
come back to it later.


-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:ops.lists at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:34 AM
To: dcrocker at bbiw.net
Cc: Adkins, Michael; DKIM IETF WG
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft Errata on RFC 4871

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Dave CROCKER <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
> It looks as if the two of you are agreeing that the i= value is indeed
> opaque to a receiver.

Cant speak for madkins but that's my impression.  I would also add
"often irrelevant"  besides "opaque"

-- 
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists at gmail.com)