On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote:
> My question about the stance toward DKIM tweaks[1] was never answered.
> To re-state, while preclusion is apparent for the organizational
> domain issue, it is not clear for DKIM. The charter says:
>
> The working group will not develop additional mail authentication
> technologies, but may document authentication requirements that
> are desirable.
>
It also says:
The working group will consider mechanisms for reducing or eliminating
the DMARC's effects on indirect mail flows. Among the choices are:
- A form of DKIM signature that is better able to survive transit
through intermediaries.
- Collaborative or passive transitive mechanisms that enable an
intermediary to participate in the trust sequence, propagating
authentication directly or reporting its results.
- Message modification by an intermediary, to avoid authentication
failures, such as by using specified conventions for changing the
aligned identity.
Consideration also will be given to survivable authentication through
sequences of multiple intermediaries.
So I think you're covered.
Clarity and comprehensibility are very important from my POV[2]. For
> that sake, I suggest the charter mention candidate solutions such as
> DKIM-Delegate and TPA-Labels explicitly. Some further wordsmithing
> may be advisable too.
>
It probably wouldn't be harmful to list them as possible inputs to the
work, so that people reviewing the charter have some context, so long as
doing so doesn't also constrain the WG's options.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
