Franck Martin wrote:
----- "Scott Kitterman" <ietf-dkim(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com> wrote:
Except that the ADSP RFC is already published and so it is what it is.
It is definitely
premature to crack ADSP open again (of course I thought that about
DKIM too).
But as ADSP states, that the problem of 3rd party signing is not covered,
and it seems the issue of mailing lists, then an addendum can
be done.
Keep in mind that it doesn't matter if RFC 5617 is updated or extended
to include 3rd party signer if it doesn't include a mandate for
resigners MUST honor and support policy.
Thats the key fundamental issue here because it alters the strategic
business DKIM models that do not include POLICY its its framework.
It comes down to two principles:
1) Unrestricted Resigners, or
2) Resigner controls based on Original Domains policies.
To their credit, Crocker and Levine wanted #1 Pro-policy people
wanted #2. To appease the pro-policy people, Levine took control of
SSP and released ADSP with the attempt to make it a separate concept
outside #1 business models. #1 models simply need to ignore the RFC
5617 protocol.
What they didn't realized is that receivers could support it, maybe in
a marketing attempt to publicize a
"Total DKIM solution with ADSP support"
and these become problems for resigners.
So even if we as a WG decide to add a 3rd party signing policy, the
issue remains on whether the resigner is obligated in supporting ADSP
v1.0 and and ADSP v2.0 with 3rd party features.
--
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html