At 17:02 25-03-2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
The following is offered to prime the discussion/decision process
for the one of
the pending Errata items, developed in the SF working group meeting.
It reflects
what I heard as the gist of the group preference. Obviously, I might have
entirely misunderstood...
[snip]
"Old" refers to the Errata I-D; "New" is the proffered replacement.
CAVEAT:
This last-of-three postings affects the same section of text as
the Assessor
revision posting, but attends to a different issue. I've only just gotten
clarification on what this third item was to be, so here's another
apology for a
bit of confusion.
Had I remembered all 3 items I would have tried to merge this
with the other
Assessor change, which is what the current note attempts:
8. RFC4871 Section 2.11 Identity Assessor
Old:
The name of the module that consumes DKIM's primary payload, the
responsible Signing Domain Identifier (SDID). It can optionally
consume the Agent or User Identifier (AUID) value, if provided to
the module.
New:
The name of the module that consumes DKIM's mandatory payload, the
responsible Signing Domain Identifier (SDID). The module is dedicated
to the assessment of the delivered name. Other DKIM (and non-DKIM)
values can also be delivered to this module as well as to a
more general
message evaluation filtering engine. However this additional activity
is outside the scope of the DKIM signature specification.
It may be better to have "Assessor" or "DKIM Assessor" unless you
want to constraint the module to consume the SSID only or identities
only. I suggest:
8. RFC4871 Section 2.11 DKIM Assessor
The name of the module that consumes DKIM's mandatory
payload. Other DKIM
values can also be delivered to this module as well as to a
more general message evaluation filtering engine. However
this additional
activity is outside the scope of the DKIM signature specification.
If you want to deliver non-DKIM values, then it does not sound right
to have DKIM in the name. If the mandatory payload is redefined in
future, there won't be any need to change the text.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html