ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposed changes to MLM draft

2010-08-30 15:52:52
  On 08/30/2010 10:13 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:


On 8/30/2010 1:10 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
I'd suggest that the second item actually be a normative 
specification of
value-added features. This requires a change to the charter, and so 
it would
have to wait until completing the current charter.

can you elaborate on what, in your view, would be part of this normative
specification?

merely as an example, I'll cite the usage of DKIM for subscription and 
submission validation that has been mentioned a few times.  Formally, 
using DKIM that way is almost certainly a value-added semantic that 
goes beyond the semantics of the DKIM signing specification.  That's 
ok to do, but requires a normative spec to define the behavior and 
meaning.

Can we say anything normative about subscriptions and submissions when 
the From address (even if DKIM signed- and verified OK) does not 
necessarily say anything about the identity of the sender?

Or, vice versa, can we put more trust/faith in the From address if the 
domain in the From address is equal to the d= domain value?

I assume you mean with subscription and submission validation, the act 
of permitting/denying someone/some address to subscribe or to submit 
mail? If so, that's an action in the category 'authorization' and 
authorization requires authentication as foundation.

Please note: I'm not trying to kick off a complete new discussion, but 
these are real questions that keep me busy. I'd love if the answer to 
the second question would be: "Yes, IF domain part of From address 
equals d= domain value, THEN we can use the From address as 
authentication information", but I believe all discussions on this list 
have not provided a clear "yes" answer to this question.

+1 for taking these items out of the MLM draft and create a separate 
document for them, although I'm not sure it can be normative or just 
informational.

/rolf

P.S. Dave, is it possible to disable greylisting for mipassoc.org or at 
least for contributions to this list? Now we get sometimes a-synchronous 
contributions where the answer precedes the question. (And yes, I hate 
greylisting).
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html