Re: [marf] meaning of signatures, was I-D Action: draft-ietf-marf-as-07.txt

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <[e-mail]>]

In
<[e-mail]>,
on 02/12/2012
   at 08:53 AM, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]> said:

>Despite DKIM passing on a message for any given domain, you don't
>know whether or not that domain name represents the entity claimed in
>the message header or body.

How is DKIM relevant to potential future standards?  The statement was
"I can't conceive of an Internet-based technology that can confirm
intent or legitimacy of the signer/author/whatever.", not "I can't
conceive of a DKIM-based technology that can confirm intent or
legitimacy of the signer/author/whatever."

>In any case, if we were to speculate on any possible future
>authentication technology, this document will suffer more bloat than
>it already has.

I was suggesting that we shorten it rather than lengthen it, by making
a general statement rather than listing specific technologies.

-- 
     Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
     Atid/2        <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)