Fundamentally, we tried to make DKIM-BASE independent of specific
implementation evaluation methods starting by pulling semantics
regarding policy.
However, an evaluation layer for trust was reintroduced in section 2.3.
2.3. Identity
A person, role, or organization. In the context of DKIM, examples
include the author, the author's organization, an ISP along the
handling path, an independent trust assessment service, and a mailing
list operator.
While I personally thing this is good to help complete the mail system
DKIM integration picture, I also think it better to keep it open-ended
by excluding this layer semantic, change the text to signer domain or
make it complete by including identity text regarding Policy Assessment.
Overall, the question is what is the technical identity that reflects:
ISP
Independent Trust Assessment Service
Mailing List
We know signer domain is desired for the trust assessment, and we can
presume something like the list-id for mailing list can be be used but
what will reflect the ISP and why also have ESP or just mail host?
But to keep this simple, while I believe it the trust layer
introduction is not consistent in 2.3, I would like to see that we
also add Policy Assessment semantics to this text.
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html