[ietf-dkim] 2.1 Signers // Within an administrative domain?

[Douglas Otis]

On Apr 18, 2006, at 10:43 AM, <Bill.Oxley at cox.com>  
<Bill.Oxley at cox.com> wrote:
>>
>> ,---
>> | 2.1  Signers
>> |...
>> | The key issue is that a message must be signed before it
>> | leaves the administrative domain of the signer.
>> '---
>>
>> What is intended by this statement?  How does this relate to messages
>> signed by an MUA, which is not mentioned as a possible signer?  Is
>> this statement intended to preclude the use of MUA signed messages?
>>
>> (Use of the word "key" appears to be a poor choice of words.)
>
> If a MUA is the signer I would hope it is within its own  
> administrative
> domain. I haven't seen one yet that was outside of its own domain.

Administrative domain is not a separately defined term.  This  
definition is attempting to indirectly define an administrative  
domain.  The private key with an MUA represents an administrative  
domain?  The signer terminology is better clarified when defining  
these terms separately.

-Doug