Re: [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures

Barry,

DKIM Chair wrote:
> In discussions with the IESG to sort through their "discuss" comments, I 
> had a talk with Lisa Dusseault, and she had one point that I want to 
> bring back to the mailing list:  I don't think we considered, in our 
> discussions of multiple signatures, multiple *linked* signatures, which 
> could work TOGETHER to convey information, and the protocol doesn't 
> allow that sort of thing.  
...
> The WG did discuss related things, so maybe we'll decide that this was 
> covered and dismissed, but it's a wrinkle that I want to make sure we 
> look at. 

On the other hand...

It would not take very much effort to describe quite a few scenarios that the 
current specification does not cover, and possibly has no obvious way to cover. 
 (For some months, I have known of at least one real-world need that isn't 
covered, for example.)
We are not going to anticipate every theoretical or every actual need, and the 
requirement for linked signatures has not been stated before, by the 
constituency that is seeking to actually *use* DKIM.
There is, therefore, a basic question:  Why should a stable specification, for 
which working group consensus has been reached, be required to pursue such a 
topic at this stage?
Yes, I understand that an AD has a Discuss and that that's important.  But it 
does not mean that it is a legitimate basis for declaring that the working group 
must consider usage goals for which there has been no expressed need.
I therefore suggest that the working group politely decline to pursue this 
scenario.

d/
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html