[ietf-dkim] Modified Introduction text for rfc4871-errata (resend)
mike at mtcc.com
Tue Jun 16 16:23:55 PDT 2009
Dave CROCKER wrote:
> Steve Atkins wrote:
>> Given that the RHS of i= is either identical or a subdomain of d= it's
>> 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
More information about the ietf-dkim