[ietf-dkim] ADSP Informative Note on parent domain signing

[Douglas Otis]

On Apr 21, 2009, at 6:41 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:

> Barry Leiba wrote:
>> This discussion seems to have settled down, but I don't see a clear
>> consensus on it.  Let's take a little poll, then, on this thread.  No
>> further discussion, for now, just the poll, and please don't assume
>> that silence means anything.
>>
>> Post to this thread, one of the following:
>>
>> "Include the informative note."
>> "Do not include the informative note."
>> "I don't care [or I have no opinion] either way."
>>
>
> Just to clarify the version of the Informative Note that I believe is
> "in play" at this point, it should be the one that's based on Ellen
> Siegel's wording:
>
>> Informative Note:  DKIM signatures by parent domains as described in
>> section 3.8 of [RFC4871] (in which a signer uses "i=" to assert that
>> it is signing for a subdomain) do not satisfy the requirements for
>> an Author Domain Signature as defined above.

Do not include an incorrect informative note!   The i= value is NOT  
part of ADSP evaluation and therefore plays NO role with respect to  
ADSP compliance.

A signer is free to assert whatever they wish with the i= value that  
is within the signing domain.  The only limitation is the Author  
Domain and the Signing Domain must be the same.  Do NOT refer to this  
requirement as having anything to do with the i= value.

-Doug