I think the term "security gateway" in that document is meant to describe a gateway (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5598#section-5.4) that is primarily used to do "security" things to any email sent through that gateway. Maybe it would be better to drop the word security, rather than try to define this specific term for this specific subset of gateways? I don't think there's anything technically special about the security aspect with respect to how DKIM2 would work in the context of these mail flows.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 4:30 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 3:53 PM Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> draft-gondwana-dkim2-motivation-03 continues the use of the term >> 'security gateway' as if it were an established term of art and without >> defining it. And the term is only used in Section 2.4.1. >> >> To my knowledge it is not an established term of art. And I noted this >> issue with use of the term in comments about an earlier version of the >> draft. >> >> While one might guess at the meaning of the term, guessing is not a >> valid foundation for use of a term. >> > > Since this document is now adopted, should we start using the WG issue > tracker for things like this to ensure they get resolved in some future > document revision? > > -MSK > _______________________________________________ > Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
