On Wed 02/Jul/2014 18:51:11 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> My question about the stance toward DKIM tweaks[1] was never answered.
>> To re-state, while preclusion is apparent for the organizational
>> domain issue, it is not clear for DKIM.  The charter says:
>>
>>    The working group will not develop additional mail authentication
>>    technologies, but may document authentication requirements that
>>    are desirable.

If MSK's interpretation is correct, I suggest rewording the paragraph
quoted above more or less like so:

  The working group may document what authentication requirements
  are desirable, but will not consider other mail authentication
  methods than DKIM and SPF.

I suggest that because the other passages, quoted below, can be done
without updating RFC 6376.  For example, draft may-forward specified a
form of DKIM signature in terms of "h=from; d=fromdomain; c=relaxed;
l=0; mf=targetdomain".  So the first bullet below wouldn't imply that
modifying DKIM is admissible if a new c14n algorithm were considered
an additional mail authentication technology.

> It also says:
> 
> The working group will consider mechanisms for reducing or eliminating
> the DMARC's effects on indirect mail flows.  Among the choices are:
> 
>    - A form of DKIM signature that is better able to survive transit
>      through intermediaries.
> 
>    - Collaborative or passive transitive mechanisms that enable an
>      intermediary to participate in the trust sequence, propagating
>      authentication directly or reporting its results.
> 
>    - Message modification by an intermediary, to avoid authentication
>      failures, such as by using specified conventions for changing the
>      aligned identity.
> 
> Consideration also will be given to survivable authentication through
> sequences of multiple intermediaries.
> 
> So I think you're covered.

In that case I support the charter, albeit its text can be improved.

Ale

_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

Reply via email to