[ietf-dkim] Issue 1288: definition of 'signing address'
stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie
Fri Jun 9 07:19:10 PDT 2006
Jim Fenton wrote:
> The term 'signing address' is used several places within -base, so it
> might warrant being defined in section 2. Since the first mention of it
> is in the introduction, I'd propose that we add a forward reference in
> the introduction. So the second paragraph of section 1.2 would become:
> INFORMATIVE RATIONALE: The signing address (defined in Section 2.x)
> associated with a DKIM signature is not required to match a particular
> header field because of the broad methods of interpretation by recipient
> mail systems, including MUAs.
> And then add the following new section, probably after 2.2:
> 2.x Signing Address
> The signing address for a given signature is the address specified by
> the i= value of its DKIM-Signature header field, or in the absence of
> the i= tag, by its default value as specified in the description of the
> i= tag in Section 3.5.
> How does this work for everyone?
Ignoring the actual definition (which is ok, as would be singing domain,
or signer), it seems a bit cumbersome to have pointers from 1.2 -> 2.X
-> 3.5 like that. Can't it all be put in one place? e.g. just define
the thing fully in 3.5, reference that from 1.2 and either omit 2.X or
else make 2.X consist only of a pointer to 3.5.
More information about the ietf-dkim