Douglas Otis wrote:
On Apr 6, 2009, at 4:36 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
There remains some disagreement on whether the "informative note"
contained in the last paragraph of the text I proposed on March 27
should appear in the ADSP draft. The note said:
Informative Note: ADSP is incompatible with DKIM signing by parent
domains described in section 3.8 of [RFC4871] in which a signer uses
"i=" to assert that a parent domain is signing for a subdomain.
This would replace the Note in draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-09, section 2.7.
### This note is not correct. The incompatibility is not dependent
upon the i= value, which might be omitted.
Informative Note: ADSP is incompatible with DKIM signing by parent
domains described in section 3.8 of [RFC4871] when a parent domain
signs for a sub-domain within an email-address. ADSP requires the
From email-address domain (Author Domain) and the signing domain
(SDID) to be the same.
But what section 2.7 talks about has to do with the use of the i=
value. Without the i= value, Parent Domain Signing (as defined there)
doesn't exist.
Have a look at the alternate wording I proposed in response to Ellen's
message and let me know what you think of that.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html