Subject: [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Requirement #8

From: Damon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 10:42:55 -0400

8. The Protocol is not required to publish a Practice of any/all
        unreleated third parties that MUST NOT sign on the domain
        holder's behalf.

           [INFORMATIVE NOTE: this is essentially saying that the
           protocol doesn't have to concern itself with being a
           blacklist repository.]

Spelling issue: unreleated = unrelated

also

This might be a semantics issue but, does this mean that, while it is
not required, it is still an option to be able to publish who MUST NOT
sign?

And if it _is_ still an option, does this mean that the unrelated
parties sig should be ignored or is it suggested that it be treated
with prejudice?

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

---

From: Damon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 11:54:35 -0400

On 8/9/06, Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Damon wrote:
> As I read it, it says that the (SSP) protocol MUST NOT have that
> feature. Some other protocol might.
>
> Personally I think this is right since I can't think of any
> reason why the presence of a signature would in itself be a
> negative. I guess that 5.3, req #9 also more-or-less says this.
> I (and others, I expect) would argue strongly that it would
> be wrong to do otherwise.
>
> We had a related discussion about whether mail is required to
> be routed directly or not, but that should IMO be separate from
> this and doesn't currently seem to be in the document, which
> again I think is probably correct, though others may differ.
>
> Stephen.
>
> PS: The above is with chair hat off, of course.
>

I am thinking that the purpose of the original discussion was to keep
the OA's reputation from being tarnished by the subsequent signers.
Like it or not, the sig is likely going to be tied to reputation
somehow anyway. Are there any thoughts on how to avoid this?

Regards,
Damon Sauer
<I have all my hair so no need to wear a hat>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: "Hector Santos" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 12:29:40 -0400

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
To: "Damon" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "DKIM List" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Requirement #8

> feature. Some other protocol might.

Small nit.

    "The protocol is not required...."

to me, means it is optional.  The informative note seems to connotate this
"doesn't have to concern itself"  which mean I could if I wanted to.

Correct?

Maybe changing to:

    "The protocols does not need.."

or just remove #8 altogether.  Don't need to mention it,

--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 16:38:40 +0100

Stephen.