-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Hector Santos
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 1:15 PM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] [dkim] #1: Suggestion to change text in section 2.3
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?
It is. The question is: Is it harmful not to list it explicitly? There
doesn't seem to be support for that idea so far.
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?
But that's exactly what it's doing: It's delivering an identity specifically
without assigning any value or meaning to that name. That belongs in other
layers. It is, therefore, just as you said: It's independent of subjective
evaluation layers.
And that means the definition is fine as-is.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html