[ietf-dkim] [dkim] #1: Suggestion to change text in section 2.3
hsantos at isdg.net
Sat Apr 16 14:18:02 PDT 2011
Dave CROCKER wrote:
> On 4/15/2011 12:10 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> All of that discussion belongs in the deployment document or some unwritten specs about policy or reputation (which is all semantics), not in the base specification (which is all syntax).
> It's more fun to re-fight old battles that are out of scope for the current
> work, but it's not nearly as productive.
This is not fun.
It is 100% in scope. An authorized signer is a natural identity of the
DKIM consideration, implementation, deployment and a major efficacy
and durability factor.
The surreal aversion to include this identity in section 2.3 needs to
be explained based on the dearth of technical merits as an DKIM
dentity. That is not have been done, and doing so would be a
productive time well spent.
The intentional neglect for excluding a valuable DKIM identity
component is not an acceptable engineering solution.
More information about the ietf-dkim