Just to be clear here, I don't want to delay DKIM-BASE either.
Nor do I want us to waste time trying to fit our design to fit the publication
scheme for PROPOSED. We want to take the spec to DRAFT standard so we have a
chance to refactor the documents so that we have all the parts relating to the
key record in one place and all the parts relating to the policy record format
in one place.
I think that we can make the design of POLICY straightforward enough that we
can have one document for both.
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Hector Santos
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 3:02 PM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: New SSP Requirement - Body
Truncation Limits
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Hector Santos wrote:
I was thinking it might make sense to allow the SSP DOMAIN
to define
a policy attribute in its SSP record which exposes the expectation
for body truncations.
I agree that this should be a capability, but I disagree
> with extending the policy specification.
The rules of DKIM mean that any information of this type must go
> into the key records. If a verifier finds a valid, trusted
DKIM > signature the policy record would not normally be read.
Even better. My only reason for suggesting SSP was because I
didn't want to further delay DKIM-BASE. But Yes, definitely,
I agree with you. The consideration should be (would be more
appropriate) for the key record.
So if the feature is to be supported the only place to put it
> is in the key record as a key signing constraint.
+1.
---
HLS
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html