Subject: [ietf-dkim] Issue: 5.3, req#2 additional note...

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 16:56:28 +0100

As I read the document, if I indicate a "DKIM signing complete"
policy, but never actually send any (signed or unsigned) mail,
then I have achieved the goal set out in requirement #2 from
section 5.3 ("doesn't send mail").

Now I don't object to the requirement itself, but would like
to suggest adding a note something like:

    "INFORMATIVE NOTE: The Protocol could achieve this by
     publishing a "DKIM signing complete" practice. If such
     a practice is published, but no (legitimate) mail is
     ever sent, then the resulting system meets this
     requirement."

The reasons being that:-

a) I remain worried that since this practice is nothing to
do with signing, there is a real possibility that we may
overlap with some other technology (e.g. SPF or whatever
else) with potentially bad results,

b) I think that having as few policy-knobs as possible is
best (based on experience with X.509 where there are too
many IMO) and this seems like a case where we can usefully
fold two requirements into one such policy-knob, and,

c) I'm fine with the WG deciding later on whether to use
one or two bits for these practices so I don't see a need to
strike the requirement itself (which I agree is a real
requirement, expressed in the way users/operators might
find easiest).

Cheers,
Stephen.

PS: Chair hat is still off - its on the chair beside me:-)

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