On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 17:52 -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 5:24 PM -0700 6/1/06, Douglas Otis wrote:
. . .without additional regulatory clarification or
policy changes that might impact existing agreements.
The DKIM WG making DNS policy for ICANN should be considered out of
scope for the WG.
I agree with you about deleting the suggested remedy. Such a provision
that bans the use of DKIM keys or perhaps the underscore label could be
more complex than imagined.
The rationale for this being included within the Security Consideration
section was to highlight an expectation that a regulatory body may need
to act. This could be seen as analogous to an IANA consideration
section. As was mentioned, this could be viewed as a notice to ICANN,
ARIN, APNIC, LACNIC, AfricNIC, RIPE NCC, and DENIC.
A DKIM implementer might also need to include DKIM related security
terms and conditions with private providers in conjunction with future
or existing services as related to the publishing of DKIM keys and their
use. This is a new security related element independent of normal
domain delegation obligations.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html