[ietf-dkim] Open issues in RFC4871bis
Murray S. Kucherawy
msk at cloudmark.com
Fri Apr 1 14:08:22 PDT 2011
In our conference call with Jim, Dave and I are left with three things that need discussion in the working group before we request a working group last call on it.
The first, and biggest, is the removal of "i=" that Jim has proposed separately, so please comment on that thread.
Two lesser issues are:
1) The document currently talks about authors signing their mail, when authors really don't sign their mail, ADMDs do. The point of the objection is that it might be wiser to talk about actual uses only and not include possible uses. The suggestion is thus to remove the idea that an author can do signing, changing it to "authors' organizations" or perhaps "authors' ADMDs". Is there support for this, or support against making that change, or does it not really matter?
2) The document has text related to "assessment". Does an "independent assessment service" fit into the DKIM model? Again, the issue is whether or not we want to include discussion of uses that are possible but uncommon. Is there support for this change, or support against making the change, or does it not really matter?
The text in question is this:
A person, role, or organization. In the context of DKIM, examples
include the author, the author's organization, an ISP along the
handling path, an independent trust assessment service, and a mailing
We'd like to hand a revision to the chairs by April 10th to start WGLC, so please weigh in sooner rather than later on all three of these points so we can get some idea of consensus opinion and prepare the drafts accordingly.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ietf-dkim