Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue #1553: note on figure in overview draft

[Jim Fenton]

John Levine wrote: Per the response to Levine's concern, I'd rather simply have text that dodges the question of multiple signatures, here. Multiple sigs are fine, but the figure is trying to look at a more contained topic. I believe that having the figure explicitly show multiple sigs will, for example, require showing multiple private/public key pairs, and probably some sort of iterative behavior to cycle through each key. I'd rather have it just show one signature and put side text saying that messages can have multiple signatures, but the way a receiver interprets multiple valid signatures is beyond the scope of this document. I disagree.  The input to the "message filtering engine" block is likely to involve information on more than one valid signature, as is the decision made by  "assess signer" (which, I argue, should be plural) as to whether to check signing practices.  The evaluation of a signature is something that can be done on a per-signature basis, but later assessments and filtering should show the role of multiple signatures. I don't think that the interpretation of multiple valid signatures is beyond the scope of this document.  The overview was created in order to provide information on how DKIM might be used; ignoring the multiple signature case does not serve that purpose well. -Jim

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html