[ietf-dkim] ADSP Informative Note on parent domain signing

[Dave CROCKER]

Jim Fenton wrote:
> Yes, the i= value _is_ ignored when determining ADSP compliance.  The
> text that refers to the i= value is in RFC 4871, not the ADSP spec, and
> the point of the note is to point out that the comments about the use of
> i= there don't apply to ADSP because ADSP doesn't use i=.


I am getting increasingly confused about this topic.

The Update substantially alters what RFC4871 says or implies about i=.  It could 
well be that when the -bis effort does a detailed review of RFC4871+Update it 
finds further clarification and removals to make about i=.

Why, then, should ADSP make any comment about i= at all, given that ADSP no 
longer uses i=?

Having tidbits of clarification language can be helpful, but providing them when 
there isn't any experience to suggest their need and especially when they refer 
to something that is not cited anywhere else in a specification is downright 
peculiar.

Given how vigorously you seem to feel that it /should/ be included, I seem to 
keep missing the compelling argument that justifies it.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net