Subject: [ietf-dkim] When i= domain != d= domain

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:01:09 -0700

,---
| d= The domain of the signing entity (plain-text; REQUIRED).  This
|    is the domain that will be queried for the public key.  This
|    domain MUST be the same as or a parent domain of the "i=" tag
|    (the signing identity, as described below).  When presented with
|    a signature that does not meet this requirement, verifiers MUST
|    either ignore the signature or reject the message.
'___

: d= The domain of the signing entity (plain-text; REQUIRED).  This
:    is the domain that will be queried for the public key.  This
:    domain MUST be the same as or a parent domain of the "i=" tag
:    (the signing identity, as described below).  When presented with
:    a signature that does not meet this requirement, verifiers MUST
:    consider the signature invalid.

Rather than suggesting the remedy of ignoring or rejecting the  
message, the signature should be defined as invalid.  Perhaps this  
represents some future version of the DKIM protocol, where a backward  
compatible signature may also be present.  It seems defining the  
state of the signature rather than possible remedies would be more  
useful.

-Doug

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

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:31:12 -0700

At 3:01 PM -0700 4/25/06, Douglas Otis wrote:
>represents some future version of the DKIM protocol, where a 
>backward compatible signature may also be present.  It seems 
>defining the state of the signature rather than possible remedies 
>would be more useful.

Fully agree.

---

From: Arvel Hathcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 10:22:01 -0500

> It seems defining the state of the signature rather than possible
 > remedies would be more useful.

This makes sense to me as well.

-- 
Arvel

---

From: Eric Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 13:10:08 -0700

>  > remedies would be more useful.

phoffman> Fully agree.

arvel> This makes sense to me as well.

So is there consensus that this change belongs in -02?

eric

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 13:24:45 -0700

> So is there consensus that this change belongs in -02?

sounds good to me.

       Mike

---

From: Jim Fenton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 13:33:59 -0700

> So is there consensus that this change belongs in -02?
I agree with the change suggested by Doug's message, but not the wording
that you actually quoted.  "Defining the state of the signature" isn't
clear, but the earlier text is.

-Jim

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 13:58:05 -0700

> This makes sense to me as well.

+1

d/

-- 

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>

---

From: Eric Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 14:28:10 -0700

I think the rules say that only a WG Chair can declare consensus, but 
it sure sounds to me like we have it.  I'll make the change as soon 
as I'm given the go.

eric

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 23:01:58 +0100

Eric Allman wrote:
> I think the rules say that only a WG Chair can declare consensus, but it 
> sure sounds to me like we have it.  I'll make the change as soon as I'm 
> given the go.

Sorry folks, I've been mega-swamped this week so don't have
the context. I didn't notice objections so it seems like a
consensus change assuming I didn't miss a message.

S.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 20:43:51 -0400

In all cases we should be defining status of an event rather than conclusions about potential remedies

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] on behalf of Eric Allman
Sent: Fri 4/28/2006 4:10 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] When i= domain != d= domain

phoffman> Fully agree.

eric