ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Output summary

2011-04-29 18:39:05
Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I just wanted to demonstrate that, IF we follow the 
logic of not crossing protocol boundaries strictly, THEN communicating 
the d= payload /without additional information/, we

    * either enforce upper layers to violate layers or
    * in advance we discourage in advance the design and development of
      a number of useful applications that otherwise could have been
      built on top of DKIM.


In the archives I found exactly this same concern and discussion, see 
for example the contribution of Jim: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org/msg11105.html

Indeed, the chickens have come to roost. This was ill-conceived at the
time of the errata, and it is ill-conceived here. It is yet another reason
why I believe that the protocol described in 4871bis only bears passing
resemblance to 4871 and interoperation will be purely coincidental.

Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html