Not sure what you are getting at here. The draft describes how to glue PKIX certificates to DKIM messages. So the material in it is an extension to DKIM. It is certainly possible to implement a DKIM scheme without this if that is what you mean by 'stand alone'. But it is not possible to extend something without a dependency on what you extend.
-----Original Message----- From: Mark Delany [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tue 12/16/2008 6:19 PM To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip Cc: IETF-DKIM Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] First cut on certificate extensions draft On Dec 16, 2008, at 1:21 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: An update of the extensions draft that focuses exclusively on the X.509 certs extensions is attached. Note that even though this is intended to be an individual submission, comments from others are welcome. The point of not making it a WG charter item is that this work item is not sufficient by itself to justify rechartering. This has undergone substantial modification as a result of Paul's input at the meeting. In particular I realized that there are significant use cases for both 'call by reference' and 'call by value'. Another major modification is that in this draft, ALL certificates are encoded as a MIME application/pkix-pkipath object as described in the TLS extensions RFC. So even if you have a single self-signed cert, you have tio wrap it in a path. The reason for this is that in the context of DKIM, Hi Phil. Maybe the draft didn't render properly for me, but I didn't find anything that described how this actually relates to DKIM directly. Put another way, can this draft stand on its own in the absence of DKIM? Mark.
_______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
