-----Original Message-----
From: dkim issue tracker
[mailto:trac+dkim(_at_)zinfandel(_dot_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 2:48 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: [dkim] #11: 2.5 SDID minor nit
#11: 2.5 SDID minor nit
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2011q2/015834.html
In Section 2.5, the text
identity claiming responsibility for introduction
of a message into the mail stream.
seems to be odd and as stated technically untrue.
Isn't SDID identity the responsible signer? SDID has no technical
responsibility for either the creation of the message since it did not
exist yet, or responsibility for actually adding the message into the
mail stream.
Maybe it can be reworded:
A single domain name that is the mandatory payload output of DKIM and
that refers to the identity claiming responsibility for the signed
message introduced into the mail stream.
I think it's redundant to refer to a signed message, since that's what the
entire document is defining; if the message isn't signed, the document doesn’t
apply in the first place.
So the question to me is more like: Is an intermediary adding a signature
generating a new message?
If the answer is "yes", then no change is required.
If the answer is "no", then it seems to me the simplest path is to change
"identity claiming responsibility for introduction of a message into the mail
stream" to "identity claiming some responsibility for a message in the mail
stream".
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html