Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Jim Fenton wrote:
But -rfc4871-errata-02 defines this backwards. The erratum makes
everything else internals, which eliminates a lot of information that
might be useful to a downstream assessor. For example:
[...]
Perhaps this is a terminology question.
No, the confusion is much deeper than that. It's about a protocol layering and
protocol specification scope.
The fact that upper layers sometimes reach down into lower layer information,
and the fact that this is sometimes useful, does not eliminate the nature of
the
layering or the fact that there is a layering violation. Protocol layering is
a
matter of design discipline, not just terminology.
In this case, it appears that Jim is confusing the sole stated goal of DKIM:
"permitting a signing domain to claim responsibility for the introduction
of a message into the mail stream"
with other useful goals. He's conflating these other goals, such as validation
of message content, into the DKIM Signing spec, on the theory that someone,
sometime, might want to do it a variety of yet-to-be-specified functions.
Apparently the feeling is that any constraint in the Signing spec will somehow
prevent value-add functions that go beyond the spec.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html