On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 11:27 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote: > Does the working group assert the goal of covering entire sub-trees? > > Note that this isn't in the working group charter, the requirements > statement, > or even explicitly stated in the specification.
(Getting myself up to speed...) I'm pretty certain that I've correctly identified the working group charter ( http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dkim-charter.html ) and the draft specification ( draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-03 ), but your comment leads me to wonder whether I've misidentified the requirements statement; I had assumed RFC5016, however this document both implicitly in several places and explicitly in at least one place (4.2. Deployment Consideration 2: Subdomain Coverage "it would be advantageous for SSP to not only cover a given domain, but all subdomains of that domain as well") actually _does_ state this goal. Did I miss a step? (I can still see the difficulty/impossibility in realising this goal.) - Roland -- Roland Turner | Product Manager, RealMail | BoxSentry Pte Ltd 3 Phillip Street, #13-03 Commerce Point, Singapore 048693 Mob: +65 96700022 | Skype: roland.turner | Fax. +65 65365463 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.boxsentry.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
