Comments:
1. `sign message headers` - why only headers? don't we sign body
anymore?
Yeah - I inherited that phrase from the Aug 22nd version. I tend to
agree, but maybe this is really some weasel words so we don't have
to start on about "l=" yoke up-front of the charter;-)
There are two reasons for the language that was chosen:
1) DKIM really does focus on the headers. The body is included, yes,
but it's not the focus.
2) DKIM's inclusion of headers distinguishes it from classic
body-signing technologies. As soon as references are made to DKIM's
signing the body, folks will get confused.
3. `based on domain name identifiers` - frankly, I'm not sure this is
meaningful here. In what sense is the signature `based on domain name
identifiers`?
The only problem with the wording is that the signature is "associated
with" rather than "based on".
I think I prefer my version of this. ...
Again I prefer mine. Could go with yours too though.
Isn't the important question what the rest of the participants prefer?
d/
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org