[ietf-dkim] New version - draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-01

[SM]

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 
>hq.example.com, versus
>newsletter.example.org and invoices.example.org are significantly different
>naming schemes, but the semantics behind them is opaque to DKIM 
>semantics and,
>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.

Regards,
-sm