On Jun 1, 2006, at 12:39 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Doug,
Thanks for the clarification, so an assertion for subdomains that can
"opt out" of parent signing systems so that [EMAIL PROTECTED] is
authenticated with sig and [EMAIL PROTECTED] is not?
Partial mitigation o
On Jun 1, 2006, at 11:57 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just so that I can understand clearly, TLD offers signing ability
to those who don't want to develop or buy their own.
So bar.com offers to sign for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No.
Imagine a TLD wants to promote use of c
97
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Douglas Otis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 3:28 PM
To: Oxley, Bill (CCI-Atlanta)
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-02 // Parent signing
securityconsiderations
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Otis
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 2:44 PM
To: william(at)elan.net
Cc: IETF-DKIM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-02 // Parent signing
securityconsiderations
On Jun 1, 2006, at 11:33 AM, william(at)elan.net wrot
