Subject: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Third parties in "overview"

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:57:59 +0100

| Any party, anywhere along the transit path can implement DKIM
| signing.  Its use is not confined to the end systems or only
| in a boundary MTA.

Found in 3.1.2, but chapter starts with "end-to-end", and this
is a critical point of the design.  Please explain it, proposal:

[... as is ...]
| Signatures by intermediaries are also known as third party
| signatures.

If you add "email-arch" as reference maybe use the proper term
"mediators" instead of "intermediaries", or add "(mediators)".

 Frank

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

---

From: "Siegel, Ellen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:51:51 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> [email-masked]] On Behalf Of Frank Ellermann
> 

I'd like to be a bit more precise. I believe when people refer to 3rd
party signature, they mean a signature from an entity not represented in
the From header (as in ASP), or possibly also the Reply-to header. 

In other words, it is not affected by where the signing is done, but
rather by what entity is represented by the signature, i.e. the
originator could sign with a 3rd party signature, and an intermediary
could sign with a (delegated) 1st party signature. 

Ellen

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:07:24 -0400

> could sign with a (delegated) 1st party signature. 

Although a logical choice at the time it came into use, indeed the term 
"third-party" can be confusing.

An example of a "third-party" signature is the originating operator.  So it is 
fully at an end-point, but still qualifies.

In other words, you are highlighting an key point.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:44:03 +0100

> "third-party" can be confusing.

Later in the draft and after posting the issue I saw
"non-author".  That's also fine, but the interesting
case isn't an "originating operator" (that is still
end-to-end), but signatures by mediators.

 Frank

---

From: [email-masked] (Wietse Venema)
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:31:19 -0400 (EDT)

> end-to-end), but signatures by mediators.

And how would receivers tell the difference between these scenarios?

My position is don't assign different semantics to scenarios that
are indistinguishable to receivers.

	Wietse

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 15:35:17 -0400

Given that we have zero track record with this, quite a number of reasonable 
combinatorial uses, and a changing sense of the trust-overlay space for email 
transit, I suspect we should all be cautious about making any guesses of what 
will be "interesting"...

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker