[ietf-dkim] Proposal: Removal of AUID (i= tag/value)

[Hector Santos]

John R. Levine wrote:
>>> So if we keep i= as is in the spec, we can conclude the standard process and give a meaning of i= outside this spec in another RFC?
> 
> No, it's not backward compatible.  My signatures all have a fully 
> compliant i= value which is not an e-mail address.  (Take a look.)

It appears to be an email address and the mipassoc.org verifier failed 
your signature:

   Authentication-Results: sbh17.songbird.com;
	dkim=permerror (verification error: multiple DNS
	replies for `164d0.4d9bcfc5.k1104._domainkey.iecc.com')
	header.i=johnl at submit.iecc.com

Silent ponders.....

Should a verifier use the first TXT response for this public key 
164d0.4d9bcfc5.k1104._domainkey.iecc.com query?

A verbal signing practice failed Levine's expectation for a non-email 
address i= value.  Can that be translated to an automated POLICY based 
violation rule?

-- 
HLS