[ietf-dkim] Modified Introduction text for rfc4871-errata (resend)

[Michael Thomas]

Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 
> Steve Atkins wrote:
>> Given that the RHS of i= is either identical or a subdomain of d= it's  
>> nonsensical
>> to consider i= more stable than d=, as i= must change if d= does.
> 
> In fact, other than the right-hand root of the i= string which must match the d= 
> string, nothing in the i= value must exist anywhere except in the message 
> containing it.  It's difficult to get much less stable than that.

   i= can be a subdomain of d=. In fact, it is arguably *more* stable as
   i= can remain the same while moving d= up in the hierarchy.

   So somebody please inform Dave that he should re-read 4871 section 3.5.

>     This thread now seems to be re-discussing the working group decision that 
> has already been approved both by the working group and the IESG.

   This hasn't been approved by the IESG.

>     Since the exchange with Bill that replaced "reputation" with "assessment", I 
> have not seen any suggestions for changes to the text proposed for addition to 
> the draft.

   I suggest that any normative changes placed on the assessor module are outside
   of the scope of the DKIM working group.

   Since Dave has /From: mike at mtcc.com/h:j, he still won't see any suggestions.

> Have we converged on the text or does anyone have specific changes they are 
> seeking?

   No.

		Mike