I think Phil's definition below is excellent and focused. The
distinction between the two goals is really helpful imho. I make some
suggestions to clarify the goals, see below. Amir
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
...
DRAFT IETF WORKING GROUP CHARTER - 30 Aug 2005
...
The objective of the DKIM working group is to provide:
1) a mechanism that allows an email sender or intermediary to accept
responsibility for an email message in transit by adding a digital
signature.
add: Signers will be able to specify some allowable modifications to the
message in transit, resulting e.g. from mail agent processing,
forwarding services, mailing list services, etc..
2) a mechanism that allows an email sender to disclaim responsibility
for an email message by means of a security policy.
Proposed change to second line:
... for an email message, even if sent with its identity, by stating its
message signing policy and validation process.
And two minor comments on the architecture...
Architecture:
The DKIM working group will produce standards-track specifications that
describe authentication of message headers using public-key signatures.
s/message headers/email messages, including selected headers,/
A key distribution mechanism will be described employing a key centric
architecture employing domain names as identifiers.
Please clarify... `key centric`? and avoid double use of `employing`...
--
Best regards,
Amir Herzberg
Associate Professor
Department of Computer Science
Bar Ilan University
http://AmirHerzberg.com
Try TrustBar - improved browser security UI:
http://AmirHerzberg.com/TrustBar
Visit my Hall Of Shame of Unprotected Login pages:
http://AmirHerzberg.com/shame
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org