> There remains some disagreement on whether the "informative note" > contained in the last paragraph of the text I proposed on March 27 > should appear in the ADSP draft. The note said: > > > Informative Note: ADSP is incompatible with DKIM signing by parent > > domains described in section 3.8 of [RFC4871] in which a signer uses > > "i=" to assert that a parent domain is signing for a subdomain. > > > This would replace the Note in draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-09, section 2.7. > > Thus far, I feel it should be included and John Levine and Dave Crocker > feel it shouldn't. May we have guidance from others in the Working > Group, please? >
[> ] I think it may be the "incompatible" that's causing the disagreement. ADSP is not incompatible with that signing configuration, it would just require that a second signature be added. Maybe something more like the following? "ADSP should not be used for domains that use "i=" values to enable a parent domain to sign for a subdomain (as described in section 3.8 of [RFC4871]) unless an additional signature where the "d=" domain matches the "i=" domain is added." Ellen _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
