On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 11:03:48 -0500, Earl Hood wrote:
It appears that creating message-header-based digital signatures should not
have to have any knowledge of a key management system.
DKIM has extensive design details that are based on using domain names and on
doing a query to a domain name server. These details are integrated rather
tightly throughout the specification. That said, DKIM provides for specifying
an alternate key server service.
Let's try to move away from concept and into concrete details.
What specific changes to DKIM are you proposing?
What is the near-term requirement for it?
Absent a near-term requirement, we are faced with comparing the details of
the current DKIM specification that respond to immediate, known requirements,
versus hypothetical, longer-term requirements. On the average, IETF protocol
specification work that gives priority to theoretical, future requirements,
over
concrete, near-term requirements, do not fare well.
Where is the specification for the changes?
How do the changes affect the threat analysis or the charter text?
d/
---
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim