[ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures
dhc at dcrocker.net
Tue Dec 26 09:00:26 PST 2006
DKIM Chair wrote:
> In discussions with the IESG to sort through their "discuss" comments, I
> had a talk with Lisa Dusseault, and she had one point that I want to
> bring back to the mailing list: I don't think we considered, in our
> discussions of multiple signatures, multiple *linked* signatures, which
> could work TOGETHER to convey information, and the protocol doesn't
> allow that sort of thing.
> The WG did discuss related things, so maybe we'll decide that this was
> covered and dismissed, but it's a wrinkle that I want to make sure we
> look at.
On the other hand...
It would not take very much effort to describe quite a few scenarios that the
current specification does not cover, and possibly has no obvious way to cover.
(For some months, I have known of at least one real-world need that isn't
covered, for example.)
We are not going to anticipate every theoretical or every actual need, and the
requirement for linked signatures has not been stated before, by the
constituency that is seeking to actually *use* DKIM.
There is, therefore, a basic question: Why should a stable specification, for
which working group consensus has been reached, be required to pursue such a
topic at this stage?
Yes, I understand that an AD has a Discuss and that that's important. But it
does not mean that it is a legitimate basis for declaring that the working group
must consider usage goals for which there has been no expressed need.
I therefore suggest that the working group politely decline to pursue this scenario.
More information about the ietf-dkim