Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE 1525 -- Restriction to posting by first Author bre

Dear Chairs & Dave,

In the interests of moving forward, I'd like to raise four concerns 
about the message below with an eye toward how we (a) keep issues closed 
and (b) close open issues.
First, you have referenced RFC 5016 as the logic for the inclusion of 
the text that Dave objects to.  Dave has requested that consensus be 
formed FOR the change when there was consensus for the text found in 
[11] below.  I believe the onus is on Dave to show a change in 
consensus, and not the other way around.  This group, like many others, 
could run around in circles were it otherwise the case.
Second, even were it otherwise the case, Dave claims that we are 
asserting a change to RFC2822.  That assertion requires support, and I 
see none.  Nobody is forbidding multiple addresses on the 2822.From 
line.  Furthermore, SSP would work precisely as one would expect if both 
addresses come from the same domain.  We enter a world of ambiguities if 
those addresses are different, of course, and so something needs to be 
said, and something is said.
Third, the case in question is a corner case, and handling it as such in 
a way that is safe allows us to better handle the general case.
Finally, even were we to reject all of the above logic, if we review the 
text of Issue 1525 ([10] below), we do not see proposed textual 
changes.  I'd ask that for any issue to either remain open or for any 
issue to be ACCEPTed that there be at least SOME proposal for a textual 
change, even if it is as simple as "remove Section 2.3 and rework step 4 
in Section 4.4 to use any signature."  We don't even have that much.
Eliot

Dave Crocker wrote:
> > 1525    Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email 
> > semantics    new    dkim
> > Nobody    0 dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net    9 days ago        9 days ago    0
> > Proposal: REJECT, thread is [10], mailing list discussion has not 
> > unearthed
> > support for a change.
> >
> > [10] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008428.html
> > [11] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5016#section-5.3
>
> Your reading of the archive shows rather more complete and definitive 
> discussion than mine. In fact I read the archive as tending in the 
> direction of changing the specification to use Sender: rather than From.
> Would you please explain the basis for assessing that this topic got 
> sufficient discussion and that there was rough consensus on it?
> Since this specification modifies RFC2822 that fact needs explicit 
> justification.
> The current SSP language modifies RFC2822, and so there should be 
> considerable clarity about the need, the benefit, and the impact.
> d/
First, You've asserted that this specification modified RFC2822.  Can 
you please justify that assertion?

More importantly, I do not see an alternative proposed in your issue, 
and in many of your issues, for that matter.  It's important to state 
what you want done.  Here you haven't done that.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html