-----Original Message-----
From: barryleiba(_dot_)mailing(_dot_)lists(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
[mailto:barryleiba(_dot_)mailing(_dot_)lists(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com] On Behalf
Of Barry Leiba
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 6:05 AM
To: Hector Santos
Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy; ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] [dkim] #1: Suggestion to change text in section 2.3
My proposed text attempts to inject the idea that at least one
identity is an author authorized signer distinct from what is already
stated as an independent trusted identity.
But I don't think the actual "author" (in the case of this message,
me, the guy who's writing it) is involved in any way in the signing.
I certainly am not authorizing anyone to sign this message, and likely
don't know whether it will be signed or not. The DKIM model says
that's done at the domain level, independent of the author's wishes or
actions.
It's possible to have use cases where the author does decide, somehow,
whether or not the message will be signed, but I'm not aware that
anyone's doing that, or has plans to do that.
I'd suggest further than the definition as presented simply declares, and gives
examples of, the kinds of things the RFC means when it uses the word
"Identity". That simple definition doesn't imply (or exclude) any particular
application. The list of examples illustrates the breadth of that simple
definition.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html