On 8/30/10 1:13 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: >> can you elaborate on what, in your view, would be part of this normative >> > specification? > merely as an example, I'll cite the usage of DKIM for subscription and > submission validation that has been mentioned a few times. Formally, using > DKIM > that way is almost certainly a value-added semantic that goes beyond the > semantics of the DKIM signing specification. That's ok to do, but requires a > normative spec to define the behavior and meaning. It seems this would require a charter change, since DKIM does not confirm the identity of the author. Perhaps subscriptions could include an option presented to the subscriber asking how they wish their messages to be authenticated, where DKIM signed by domain X might be one such option.
-Doug _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
