[ietf-dkim] Requirements addition: Policy/Practice record for first party signatures

[Scott Kitterman]

On Wednesday 09 August 2006 13:26, Damon wrote:
> > --- 542,556 ----
> >          for signing its messages to a non-related domain in such a way
> >          that it does not require active participation by the non-related
> >          domain.  That is, the published information MUST have a way to
> > !         specify the domains that are allowed to sign on its behalf.
> > !         Signatures by such delagatees SHOULD be treated like First
> > Party !         DKIM signatures.
> >
> > --- 542,556 ----
> >          for signing its messages to a non-related domain in such a way
> >          that it does not require active participation by the non-related
> >          domain.  That is, the published information MUST have a way to
> > !         specify the domains that are allowed to sign on its behalf.
> > !         Signatures by such delagatees SHOULD be treated like First
> > Party !         DKIM signatures.
>
> I am thinking that the SHOULD might be a MUST.
>
> > !         specify the domains that are allowed to sign on its behalf.
> > !         Signatures by such delagatees MUST be treated like First Party
> > !         DKIM signatures.
>
Conceptually I agree.  If there is one place in the requirements where there 
should be a MUST for receiver policy, this is it.  However, there seems to be 
a reasonable consensus for not specifying receiver policy.  

Scott K