ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] [dkim] #1: Suggestion to change text in section 2.3

2011-04-15 15:18:33
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

All of that discussion belongs in the deployment document or some 
unwritten specs about policy or reputation (which is all semantics), 
not in the base specification (which is all syntax).

Exactly. +1.  It is about syntax and not about unwritten specs for 
reputation based implementation layers using an identity example of an 
independent trust assessment service.

Why isn't an authorized signer an identity example?

Or if we have trouble with the word "authorized" why isn't "signer 
domain," "responsible signer," or just "signer" listed as an examples 
when in fact, in section 2.5 the SDID is described as an identity?

Why can't any other stated examples for identities can be trusted?

I fail to understand what the base spec section 2.3 is trying to 
define as identities under the context of DKIM which should be 
independent of subjective evaluation layers?

-- 
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