ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Modified Introduction text for rfc4871-errata (resend)

2009-06-16 20:29:08
OK, so now I guess I'm confused.  My understanding is that if "i=" isn't
specified it takes the value of "d=", so I'm not clear how it can be 
undefined?

Maybe the wording of the errata draft could be improved (I'll propose new text 
shortly if I can), but here's my understanding:

I believe you're confusing the semantics of the DKIM signature with the 
definition of the DKIM interface.

Again, think of this in terms of an API definition.  Let's say you're building 
a DKIM library to sell or give away.  Obviously you need to know what outputs 
are required, i.e. what application developers will expect from you.

The errata draft is attempting to state clearly that the output of your library 
has to include the yes/no result of the verification and the "d=" value.  It 
can include other stuff at your discretion (you might even find that most 
assessors, the consumers of your library, want a lot more than that), but 
that's the minimum you have to provide to a consumer in order to be able to 
claim you are DKIM compliant.

It's not stating at all what the implicit value of "i=" is relative to "d=".  
In this context, that fact is irrelevant.

Think of another example, like the socket interface to TCP vs. the TCP protocol 
itself.  There's what's going on in the protocol stack and then there's what's 
going on in the C libraries we actually use.  Could be that the language used 
in RFC4871 and the errata draft don't make that distinction clear, but I 
believe that's what we're trying to achieve here.

-MSK


_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>