ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] alternate proposal to draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata

2009-02-13 13:57:14
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
In other words, I think the intent is that messages using the same
UAID MUST be intended to be evaluated as sharing the same sphere of
responsibility (this is a mandate on the sender's usage, not on the
receiver's interpretation); senders SHOULD thus label messages
intended to be evaluated as being within that sphere with the same
UAID (but aren't required to). I don't think that's a
contradiction....

The question is whether this introduces enough confusion that we need
to either 1) clarify the missing side of the coin, as above and/or 2)
strengthen the existing requirement so that the other part just falls
out.

Nicely put Ellen. Murray, I'm curious what you think now after reading
Ellen's message.

I think I'd be fine with the draft saying that (or not, since both are 
workable and defensible), but that isn't what the draft currently says.

This would obviate the need for Jim's proposed extension.  On the other 
hand, it would make it impossible for a signer to use "i=" in any kind of 
arbitrary way.

If it were up to me to make the call, I'd say leave it the way it is, and 
go with Jim's extension (or something equivalent), so the signer can 
choose.  But it's currently not a very strong opinion.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html