ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] 2.1 Signers // Within an administrative domain?

2006-04-18 12:09:36

On Apr 18, 2006, at 10:43 AM, <Bill(_dot_)Oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com> <Bill(_dot_)Oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com> wrote:

,---
| 2.1  Signers
|...
| The key issue is that a message must be signed before it
| leaves the administrative domain of the signer.
'---

What is intended by this statement?  How does this relate to messages
signed by an MUA, which is not mentioned as a possible signer?  Is
this statement intended to preclude the use of MUA signed messages?

(Use of the word "key" appears to be a poor choice of words.)

If a MUA is the signer I would hope it is within its own administrative
domain. I haven't seen one yet that was outside of its own domain.

Administrative domain is not a separately defined term. This definition is attempting to indirectly define an administrative domain. The private key with an MUA represents an administrative domain? The signer terminology is better clarified when defining these terms separately.

-Doug


_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>