On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 11:27 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
Does the working group assert the goal of covering entire sub-trees?
Note that this isn't in the working group charter, the requirements
statement,
or even explicitly stated in the specification.
(Getting myself up to speed...)
I'm pretty certain that I've correctly identified the working group
charter ( http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dkim-charter.html ) and the
draft specification ( draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-03 ), but your comment leads
me to wonder whether I've misidentified the requirements statement; I
had assumed RFC5016, however this document both implicitly in several
places and explicitly in at least one place (4.2. Deployment
Consideration 2: Subdomain Coverage "it would be advantageous for SSP to
not only cover a given domain, but all subdomains of that domain as
well") actually _does_ state this goal.
Did I miss a step?
(I can still see the difficulty/impossibility in realising this goal.)
- Roland
--
Roland Turner | Product Manager, RealMail | BoxSentry Pte Ltd
3 Phillip Street, #13-03 Commerce Point, Singapore 048693
Mob: +65 96700022 | Skype: roland.turner | Fax. +65 65365463
roland(_dot_)turner(_at_)boxsentry(_dot_)com | www.boxsentry.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html