ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue 1288: definition of 'signing address'

2006-06-09 13:56:50
Stephen Farrell wrote:

Jim,

Jim Fenton wrote:
The term 'signing address' is used several places within -base, so it
might warrant being defined in section 2.  Since the first mention of it
is in the introduction, I'd propose that we add a forward reference in
the introduction.  So the second paragraph of section 1.2 would become:

INFORMATIVE RATIONALE: The signing address (defined in Section 2.x)
associated with a DKIM signature is not required to match a particular
header field because of the broad methods of interpretation by recipient
mail systems, including MUAs.

And then add the following new section, probably after 2.2:

2.x Signing Address

The signing address for a given signature is the address specified by
the i= value of its DKIM-Signature header field, or in the absence of
the i= tag, by its default value as specified in the description of the
i= tag in Section 3.5.

How does this work for everyone?

Ignoring the actual definition (which is ok, as would be singing domain,
or signer), it seems a bit cumbersome to have pointers from 1.2 -> 2.X
-> 3.5 like that. Can't it all be put in one place? e.g. just define
the thing fully in 3.5, reference that from 1.2 and either omit 2.X or
else make 2.X consist only of a pointer to 3.5.
I did it the way I did, in large part, because section 3.5 is so big. 
We could say it's defined in the description of the i= tag in section
3.5, I suppose.

Here's where I punt the decision to the document editor...

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