[ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigning
nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Tue Aug 29 20:33:39 PDT 2006
Stephen Farrell wrote:
> I'm sure you're aware of this of course
Actually I'm not, I missed the WGLC and read only about 10%
of the 1800 unread DKIM mails some weeks ago. Base-05 was
published last week, apparently reflecting WGLC issues.
Is that now intended to go to an IETF last call, or is it
frozen waiting for whatever pops up in the SSP discussions ?
> (In fact I this thread is well beyond its use-by date
The proposed "compromise" that additional signatures are okay
as long as the first signature is still valid was new. I'd
say it's only consequent (instead of a "compromise"), but it's
a step forward. We could note it as requirement: If signers
don't munge mails they can sign everything they send without
looking at any SSP.
More information about the ietf-dkim