ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: which headers should we REQUIRE to be signed?

2006-07-13 14:08:50
I liked Dave's phrasing, so I'm using his message as the anchor for my reply:

If we take the view that -base should be limited to mechanism, and that it
defers "policy" issues to separate specification, as well as operational
preferences that develop over time, then this makes quite a bit of sense.

Given the discussion during today's working group meeting, I think we should
seriously consider taking Mark's suggestion seriously.

I agree.
I personally like the idea that we should leave the decision of which header fields to sign purely up to the signer. But that's me, not the chair, talking.

As chair, I see a growing consensus to do it that way. Let's try to resolve this issue tout de suite, and move on. I'd like to hear from people who think we should have some headers as "MUST sign". I'd like to hear from those who agree with Mark and Mike, that we should not have any with "MUST".

What say you?

Barry

--
Barry Leiba, DKIM working group chair  (leiba(_at_)watson(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com)
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html