Hector Santos wrote: > Fundamentally, we tried to make DKIM-BASE independent of specific > implementation evaluation methods starting by pulling semantics > regarding policy. > > However, an evaluation layer for trust was reintroduced in section 2.3. > > 2.3. Identity > > A person, role, or organization. In the context of DKIM, examples > include the author, the author's organization, an ISP along the > handling path, an independent trust assessment service, and a mailing > list operator.
Per Murray request to suggest changes for posted issues, in lieu of removing the trust assessment layer semantic, a more consistent text that helps promote implementation synergism for wider deployment scenarios might be: 2.3. Identity A person, role, or organization. In the context of DKIM, examples include the author, the author's organization, an author authorized signer or independent trusted signer domain along the handling path. If considered, that would be enough for me to give the RFC4871bis last call a "ready to go" endorsement -- HLS _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
