[ietf-dkim] ADSP Informative Note on parent domain signing
dhc at dcrocker.net
Fri Apr 10 20:09:29 PDT 2009
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
Given how vigorously you seem to feel that it /should/ be included, I seem to
keep missing the compelling argument that justifies it.
More information about the ietf-dkim