On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Section 4.2: >> >> I'm generally unsure about this section. It will eventually (sooner than >> later) refer to a number of expired documents. It might be more helpful to >> the reader to just summarize the idea behind each approach in a paragraph >> rather than forcing the reader to chase down specific expired I-Ds. >> > > I don't see a good way to avoid referring to (eventually) expired I-Ds. > That's the best way to catalog the ideas, but I did take your suggestions > on rephrasing the intent of some of them into some new wording. > I don't think you actually need to cite I-Ds just to enumerate the general approaches that have been proposed. Perhaps use this for the bullet list: o Third party authorization schemes provide ways to extend identifier alignment under control of the domain owner. o A way to canonicalize messages that transit mailing lists so that their alterations can be isolated from the original signed content. o A way to record message transformations applied at each hop so they can be reversed and the original signed content recovered. o "Conditional" DKIM signatures, whereby the author domain indicates its signature is only good if accompanied by a signature from an expected downstream relay. o Mechanisms to extend Authentication-Results [RFC7601] to multiple hops, creating a provable chain of custody as well as a view to message authentication results at each handling step. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
