[ietf-dkim] New version - draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-01
sm at resistor.net
Tue Feb 3 16:22:53 PST 2009
At 10:29 03-02-2009, Tony Hansen wrote:
>Its utility is outside of DKIM. The DKIM base spec says the value is
>opaque. Other specs can expose its structure.
According to informative note in RFC 4871, the Local-part of the "i="
tag is optional
because in some cases a signer may not be able to establish a
verified individual identity. That means that it's the Local-part
which is opaque and not the
domain part of the address.
At 11:47 03-02-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>ps. FWIW, my intent in included SDID was that the particular naming scheme is
>outside of DKIM semantics. So marketing.example.com and
>newsletter.example.org and invoices.example.org are significantly different
>naming schemes, but the semantics behind them is opaque to DKIM
>therefore, to the Identity Assessor.
That makes the domain part opaque too. The corrected text in the
Errata changes the introduction to "permitting a person, role or
organization that owns the signing domain to claim
responsibility". I don't see how anyone can claim responsibility
when we cannot identify the signing domain.
More information about the ietf-dkim