Dave Crocker wrote: > > > Jim Fenton wrote: >> Dave Crocker wrote: >>> At best, the benefit of having s= defined now depends on whether >>> people are setting s=email now. Are they? Should they? How will >>> they know? >> >> Are they: I haven't seen a key with s=email yet, although I'll have >> to admit that I don't look at a lot of selectors. >> >> Should they: They should as soon as they start using DKIM for >> services other than email, especially if they want to delegate keys >> to parties/agents not authorized to send email on their behalf. But >> until someone defines use for DKIM in a service other than email, >> s=email is a tautology, so I don't think it's important to state. > > We seem to have a disconnect. You said that s= needed to be in the > protocol now. If it isn't used now, then what is the benefit of > having it in the protocol now? > > (I'm not arguing for a change in the specification, but am trying to > argue for having the Overview include no more discussion than a basic > regurgitation of the specification's statement of what the option is > for. On the other hand, making no mention of the option encourages > confusion, since it is part of the current specification and failing > to refer to it leads to obvious "what is this for?" questions.)
The benefit is in order to cause verifiers to check for s= if it is present. This enable the potantial that DKIM could be used for other services. > > >>> My point is that the Overview document seeks to describe s= in the >>> most limited way it can, while at least saying something meaningful. >>> >>> Deleting a discussion of s= seems inappropriate, as does having the >>> text say more, since it's a bit of an oddity and I doubt we (the >>> community) understand it very well. >> >> I'm puzzled that you want to include text on a mechanism that we (the >> community) don't understand well, because we're likely to get it >> wrong in that case. > > Because it is part of the specification. Having the Overview fail to > refer to it does not remove it from the specification. So the Overview must mention every mechanism in the specification? It doesn't. -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
