[ietf-dkim] [dkim] #11: 2.5 SDID minor nit

[Murray S. Kucherawy]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dkim issue tracker [mailto:trac+dkim at zinfandel.tools.ietf.org]
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 2:48 PM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org
> Subject: [dkim] #11: 2.5 SDID minor nit
> 
> #11: 2.5 SDID minor nit
> 
>  http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2011q2/015834.html
> 
>  In Section 2.5, the text
> 
>     identity claiming responsibility for introduction
>     of a message into the mail stream.
> 
>  seems to be odd and as stated technically untrue.
> 
>  Isn't SDID identity the responsible signer?  SDID has no technical
>  responsibility for either the creation of the message since it did not
>  exist yet, or responsibility for actually adding the message into the
>  mail stream.
> 
>  Maybe it can be reworded:
> 
>     A single domain name that is the mandatory payload output of DKIM and
>     that refers to the identity claiming responsibility for the signed
>     message introduced into the mail stream.

I think it's redundant to refer to a signed message, since that's what the entire document is defining; if the message isn't signed, the document doesn’t apply in the first place.

So the question to me is more like: Is an intermediary adding a signature generating a new message?

If the answer is "yes", then no change is required.

If the answer is "no", then it seems to me the simplest path is to change "identity claiming responsibility for introduction of a message into the mail stream" to "identity claiming some responsibility for a message in the mail stream".