[ietf-dkim] Proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures

[Michael Thomas]

Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> writes:
> 
> 
>>Stephen,
>>
>>
>>
>>>So, in an attempt to move towards that,  let me
>>>try to ask for opinions on this discrete part of
>>>the issue: When an n-th signature(*) is added by
>>>some signer, does that mean:
>>>a) I take independent responsibility for having
>>>   sent/fowarded (the bits of) this email (that I've
>>>   signed), or,
>>>b) Me too, whatever that previous good signer
>>>   meant - it's not gotten worse.
>>
>>The meaning of a DKIM signature has been kept intentionally minimal
>>and vague. Something like alternative (b) moves towards complex
>>relationships among signers, whereas (a) retains basic simplicity.
>>
>>So, I hope (a) is the choice.
>>
>>To the extent that a signer includes the DKIM-signature header of a
>>previous signature, that ought to mean nothing more than ordering, not
>>semantics.
> 
> 
> I have to agree with Dave here. (b) sounds way too confusing.

Mein Gott. And it's not even 1-April.

+1

		Mike