On 8/30/10 1:13 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
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.
It seems this would require a charter change, since DKIM does not
confirm the identity of the author. Perhaps subscriptions could include
an option presented to the subscriber asking how they wish their
messages to be authenticated, where DKIM signed by domain X might be one
such option.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html