[ietf-dkim] draft Errata on RFC 4871
dcrocker at bbiw.net
Mon Feb 2 11:48:43 PST 2009
Eliot Lear wrote:
> I think perhaps it would help, Dave, if you could step through the
> ramifications of your concerns.
I don't understand your question. What is it about the Introduction to the
Errata that is not sufficiently clear or complete?
You appear to be asking about the ramifications of being non-interoperable, and
I know you don't really mean that.
> What it doesn't say is how the confusion
> manifests itself. Can you please clearly do so with examples?
You need an example of the problems that can ensue from having one side of a
protocol exchange consider one attribute to be the sole output and another side
consider two attributes or a different one attribute to be the output?
>> If the UAID is not the same as the address in the From:
>> header field, the mail system SHOULD take pains to ensure that the
>> actual UAID is clear to the reader.
> If you are going to go to lengths to separate the Identity Assessor from
> other parts of the system, it makes it more confusing when you continue
> the old phrasing of "mail system" above. Which mail system? Who is
> responsible for that? I presume you mean the signer, since the signer
> is the one who inserts the UAID.
damn. damn. damn. yes it does make it more confusing. yes I meant to change
it. grrrr. sorry.
I believe the intent of that sentence is something like "receiving MUA", but on
reflection, I'm not sure I fully understand what this requirement really is or
what is considered reasonable for satisfying it. And I mean that as a
specification-clarity issue, not an user interface philosophy issue.
More information about the ietf-dkim