At 14:16 21-07-2014, Ned Freed wrote:
I agree with Dave about this. This text is in the context of return
signs message content; it has no way to cover return paths or any
other part of
the envelope, which is what RFC 5321 describes. Anyone reading this is likely
to be confused and start looking for DKIM capabilities that aren't actually
The situation surrounding SPF is different. The text mischaracterizes what SPF
does, but at least SPF has something to do with return paths. Some wordsmthing
would be nice, but at least someone who goes looking for the
SPF and return paths will be able to find something.
I am not disagreeing with Dave or you.
A look at the history of that text shows that Hector Santos flagged
the issue as a small nit. Tony Hansen probably didn't think that it
was a significant issue. I agreed with Frank Ellermann that DKIM
doesn't look at return paths. After taking all that into
consideration I would not say that there wasn't consensus about that text.
The issues identified in RFC 5321 are documented at
Barry and Stephen were the DKIM WG Chairs. They did not flag that
sentence as an issue. John Klensin, Alexey, Dave and Pete were aware
of the pre-evaluation. As John Levine mentioned, we should have
caught this stuff.
I took a look at the Errata process. I don't know how to fit such a
change in there. :-(
ietf-smtp mailing list