[ietf-dkim] New Issue: protecting a domain name vs. protecting a domain tree

[Roland Turner]

On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 11:27 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:

> Does the working group assert the goal of covering entire sub-trees?
> 
> Note that this isn't in the working group charter, the requirements
> statement, 
> or even explicitly stated in the specification.

(Getting myself up to speed...)

I'm pretty certain that I've correctly identified the working group
charter ( http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dkim-charter.html ) and the
draft specification ( draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-03 ), but your comment leads
me to wonder whether I've misidentified the requirements statement; I
had assumed RFC5016, however this document both implicitly in several
places and explicitly in at least one place (4.2.  Deployment
Consideration 2: Subdomain Coverage "it would be advantageous for SSP to
not only cover a given domain, but all subdomains of that domain as
well") actually _does_ state this goal.

Did I miss a step?

(I can still see the difficulty/impossibility in realising this goal.)

- Roland

-- 
Roland Turner | Product Manager, RealMail | BoxSentry Pte Ltd
3 Phillip Street, #13-03 Commerce Point, Singapore 048693
Mob: +65 96700022 | Skype: roland.turner | Fax. +65 65365463
roland.turner at boxsentry.com | www.boxsentry.com