Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft Errata on RFC 4871

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 10:52:39 -0000

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:01:21 -0000, Suresh Ramasubramanian  
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Charles Lindsey <[email-masked]>  
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:46:25 -0000, Al Iverson  
>> <[email-masked]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So the UAID is essentially a sender-created identifier used for
>>> whatever purpose a sender wishes.
>>
>> Not quite. I expect conventions to arise for its use in particular
>> situations. For example, it might become common (even mandatory) to use  
>> it
>
> Let's put it this way - that'd be "a purpose the sender wishes" and
> not entirely inconsistent with what you say.
>
> But it's place wouldnt be in the RFC - it'd be in a use case document
> such as I suggested some few dozen emails back ...

Not in any RFC we are envisioning at the moment, but quite possibly in  
some future RFC intended to standardize some intended application of DKIM.  
That might well mandate some specific way to use the i= tag in some class  
of readily identifiable messages - some standard for List Expanders is the  
case that obviously springs to mind. In such a case, the contents of i=  
would become more than just "what the sender wishes".

We don't need to propose such a standard now, but we DO need to ensure  
that we do not tie up the wording in such a way that would make such a  
future standard impossible (not that Dave's wording has any such effect as  
currently written).

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131                       
   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 17:11:55 +0530

> future standard impossible (not that Dave's wording has any such effect as

So, I dont see where there's a problem :)  We're both agreeing with
each other here, or did I miss something.

Dave's wording strikes me as sufficiently flexible.  And there appears
to be a fairly broad consensus developing now that i= is opaque and
its use is mostly at the sender side for their internal parsing - but
may be tied to a reputation model with prior agreement between
individual senders and receivers.

There's nothing in the current wording that stops this from happening.

thanks
srs