[ietf-dkim] (registered) domain name (Re: errata revision: opaque)

[Dave CROCKER]

Folks,

My intent with the suggested wording was *only* to make the language exactly 
match what DKIM requires.  It was an exercise in precision, accuracy and 
completeness, not modification or enhancement. That is, nothing new was intended.

It clearly did not achieve that goal.

I'm reading the dominant sense of the considerable set of postings on this topic 
as being:  Return to the original wording of the Errata draft.

Hence the wording should be: "A single domain name that..." for both SDID and AUID.

Does this match everyone's assessment of consensus?

d/

Dave CROCKER wrote:
> I think this does motivate two improvements to the draft language, one for SDID 
> and one for AUID:
> 
>> 6.  RFC4871 Section 2.9 Signing Domain Identifier (SDID)
> ...
>>      New:
>>        A single domain name that is the mandatory payload output of
>>        DKIM and that refers to the identity claiming responsibility for
>>        introduction of a message into the mail stream.  For DKIM
>>        processing, the name has only basic domain name semantics; any
>>        possible owner-specific semantics is outside the scope of DKIM.
> 
>     A single domain name -> A single, registered domain name
> 
> 
>> 7.  RFC4871 Section 2.10 Agent or User Identifier (AUID)
> ...
>>      New:
>>        A single domain name that identifies the agent or user on behalf
>>        of whom the SDID has taken responsibility.  For DKIM
>>        processing, the name has only basic domain name semantics; any
>>        possible owner-specific semantics is outside the scope of DKIM.
> 
>     A single domain name -> A single, syntactically valid domain name
> 
> {{ no, I'm not in love that that wording choice.  /d }}
> 
> 
> How much indigestion does this cause?
> 
> d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net