Dave CROCKER wrote: > > On 4/15/2011 12:10 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> All of that discussion belongs in the deployment document or some unwritten >> specs about policy or reputation (which is all semantics), not in the base >> specification (which is all syntax). > > > +1 > > It's more fun to re-fight old battles that are out of scope for the current > work, but it's not nearly as productive.
This is not fun. It is 100% in scope. An authorized signer is a natural identity of the DKIM consideration, implementation, deployment and a major efficacy and durability factor. The surreal aversion to include this identity in section 2.3 needs to be explained based on the dearth of technical merits as an DKIM dentity. That is not have been done, and doing so would be a productive time well spent. The intentional neglect for excluding a valuable DKIM identity component is not an acceptable engineering solution. -- HLS _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
