[ietf-dkim] Charter bashing...

[Hallam-Baker, Phillip]

> >     ?? delegation of signing capabilities
> > 
> > Disagree
> > 
> > This is actually a show-stopper must have for the ESTG 
> group. Most of 
> > the commercial participants in the group use outsourced 
> email senders 
> > for at least some marketting campaigns. Third party signature 
> > capability is actually a differentiator against SPF.
> 
> Well, in that case I want to see some charter text which 
> stops us from defining a full-blown authorization 
> infrastructure. My intent was to stop us from defining such a 
> protocol to allow one to authorize delegation, but that 
> verifiers could of course recognize a delegation if they so 
> choose - its just that the protocol which informs the 
> verifier about the delegation wouldn't be part of dkim.

OK this sounds more like saying we are not going to support the
provisioning protocols for delegation. I agree here.

What people do consider necessary is a policy tag on a key record that
specifies something like 'this key can only sign email from
marketing at example.com so that the bulk mailer hired to do a promo can't
then impersonate the CEO.

More generally I think that instead of enumerating what we won't do we
should enumerate what we will do explicitly and say we will not do
anything else.

	Phill