On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 17:52 -0700, Paul Hoffman wrote: > At 5:24 PM -0700 6/1/06, Douglas Otis wrote: > >. . .without additional regulatory clarification or > >policy changes that might impact existing agreements. > > The DKIM WG making DNS policy for ICANN should be considered out of > scope for the WG.
I agree with you about deleting the suggested remedy. Such a provision that bans the use of DKIM keys or perhaps the underscore label could be more complex than imagined. The rationale for this being included within the Security Consideration section was to highlight an expectation that a regulatory body may need to act. This could be seen as analogous to an IANA consideration section. As was mentioned, this could be viewed as a notice to ICANN, ARIN, APNIC, LACNIC, AfricNIC, RIPE NCC, and DENIC. A DKIM implementer might also need to include DKIM related security terms and conditions with private providers in conjunction with future or existing services as related to the publishing of DKIM keys and their use. This is a new security related element independent of normal domain delegation obligations. -Doug _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
