ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Attempted summary, SSP again

2006-01-27 09:36:56

Folks,

Hector Santos wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Thomas" <mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com>

What is the difference?
The second clause is only trying to make explicit that a third
party signatures is not an acceptible substitute for a first
party signature from that domain. Which it isn't. You're making
a leap that it should also cast a shadow on the first party
signature.

I made no such leap. You are talking semantics.

While its an interesting question, SSP is two steps further along
from where-we-are-now:

0. Right now we should be focusing on the threats draft.
1. Then on the base protocol.
2. And *then* on details like this.

I'd love to see some more review of the threats document. It can't
be that perfect can it?

Stephen.

_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org