[ietf-dkim] New issue: overview doc mentions signing policies, but leaves us hanging

[Dave Crocker]

JD,

My own view is that it's problematic to refer to what isn't, what is underway, 
or what might be.  It invites extraneous hassles, when there is no need. The one 
exception might be to constrain scope, such as is done in the list at the end of 
1.1.

Further, I think the agreement in the working group was to add more discussion 
about signing practices when they are approved by the IESG.

So I guess my question to you is:  Why?  What is the important benefit in adding 
this "nothing has been done yet" statement.  (Well, ok, maybe my choice of 
descriptive words is a bit strong, but at least there's no doubt about why I 
think it shouldn't be added...)

d/

J D Falk wrote:
> Suggested addition to third paragraph of section 2.2:
> 
>    An organization might build upon its use of DKIM by publishing
>    information about its Signing Practices (SP).  This could permit
>    detecting some messages that purport to be associated with a domain,
>    but which are not.  As such, an SP can cause the trust assessment to
>    be reduced, or leave it unchanged.  [As of the date of publication of
>    this document, a standard method for publishing these Signing 
>    Practices had not yet been finalized.]
> 
> --
> J.D. Falk
> Receiver Products
> Return Path 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
> 

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net