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

[Hector Santos]

Dave CROCKER wrote:

> I think that that's entirely the wrong question.
> 
> For this stage of the document, the questions are:
> 
>     1) What problems have been documented as being due to this wording?
>     2) What technical errors does this text clearly represent.
> 
> In both cases, the answer for this text is "none".
> 
> Hence, no change should be contemplated.

Dave, the SDID is not always the responsible identity for transporting 
a message.

2.5 implies the SDID is responsible for moving the message.

Using your criteria, I believe it falls closer to #2, but closer to an 
functional error.

Maybe an example will help when viewed from a receiver or MUA standpoint:

Non-list:

    Sender: Dave @ somewhere.com
    From: user @ hosted-user-domain.com
    To:   Dave @ somewhere.com
    DKIM-Signature: d=trustme.com

List:

    Sender: list-admain @ list-galore.com
    From: user @ hosted-user-domain.com
    To:   Dave @ somewhere.com
    DKIM-Signature: d=trustme.com

Who introduced the message into the mail stream in both cases?

Certainly not the SDID trustme.com.

A small fix to section 2.5 clears up the SDID transport responsibility 
ambiguity:

    A single domain name that is the mandatory payload output of DKIM and
    that refers to the identity claiming responsibility for signing the
    message.


-- 
HLS