RE: [ietf-dkim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-10.txt> (DKIM And Mailing Lists) to BCP

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dkim-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hector Santos
> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 5:00 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-10.txt> (DKIM And Mailing Lists) to BCP
> 
> Nits and Comments:
> 
> In Section 3.1.
> 
>     author:  The agent that provided the content of the message being
>        sent through the system.  The author delivers that content to the
>        originator in order to begin a message's journey to its intended
>        final recipients.  The author can be a human using an MUA (Mail
>        User Agent) or a common system utility such as "cron", etc.
> 
> What is "cron?" and how does it interface with the originator defined as
> the MSA?  is cron an MTA or MUA?

It's a daemon that runs on UNIX systems which can be told to run specific programs at specific periodic times.  It is neither an MTA nor an MUA; it is an example of something that is an "author" in this context but is not also a human.

> I suggest to remove the "or a common .." text since we already know
> what MUA implies - a mail creation application or replace the text
> with:
> 
>        or any other message creation application [with an MTA
> component].

That doesn't make sense in the case of cron because it doesn't have an MTA component.  It invokes a local MTA.

> I personally say take it out. Not needed. Thats an *nix idea.  Windows
> people generally do not know what that is.

I think it's best to have an example.  "cron" seems to be an ideal one, though I'd be happy to add a second, Windows-specific, example if there is one.  If not, changing 'such as "cron"' to 'such as the "cron" UNIX utility' seems a better change to me.

> In Section 3.1.
> 
>     verifier:  Any agent that conducts DKIM signature analysis.
> 
> I know this is a semantical nit, but RFC4671 uses verification, never
> analysis and it (analysis) is only stated as an out of scope boundary
> layer concept (in section 3.11).   Perhaps the intent is to suggest
> the verifier does both:
> 
>     verifier:  Any agent that conducts DKIM signature validation and perhaps
>                [results|TRUST and ADSP] analysis.

The verifier does not do both.  An external module deals with ADSP and "trust" or other evaluation of the delivered domain name.

I would be fine with changing "analysis" to "validation" though, to make that clear.

> In Section 3.1 for receiver, it is very clear with stating the agent
> for "final delivery", so why not add the MDA labeled terminology as it
> was done with originator with MSA?
> 
>     receiver: ..... This agent can be often referred to as the
>        Mail Delivery Agent (MDA).

Works for me.

-MSK
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]