ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Comments on draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis-03

2011-03-07 10:00:35
On 05/Mar/11 02:02, Jim Fenton wrote:
1. Introduction: The opening paragraph has lost the sense that the 
signer has to be authorized by the domain owner to apply a signature on 
behalf of that domain.  While the previous draft was a bit too 
restrictive (implied that the signer had to actually be the domain 
owner) this version is too loose.  For the opening sentence I suggest 
something like, "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) permits a person, 
role, or organization to claim some responsibility for a message by 
associating a domain name [RFC1034] for which they are authorized with 
the message [RFC5322]."

+1, although it may be more readable swapping the nouns around "with",
that is

 DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) permits a person, role, or
 organization to claim some responsibility for a message by
 associating the message [RFC5322] with a domain name [RFC1034]
 for which they are authorized to do so.

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