-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Review of draft-ietf-dkim-base-00 (1)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:10:10 -0800
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr(_at_)rtfm(_dot_)com>
Reply-To: EKR <ekr(_at_)rtfm(_dot_)com>
To: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net
CC: DKIM IETF WG <ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org>
References: <20060319174949(_dot_)52D5AB87A(_at_)delta(_dot_)rtfm(_dot_)com>
<441E240F(_dot_)8020601(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> <86u09tqlny(_dot_)fsf(_at_)delta(_dot_)rtfm(_dot_)com>
<441EBDBE(_dot_)9070502(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> writes:
In any event, the fact that there is text that makes reference to
DNSsec does not change the logic problems I cited. By way of a
legalistic demonstration of this fact, I'll repeat that the language
is not normative.
Well, it certainly is so much easier to write security protocols
if you don't require them to be actually, you know, secure.
In fact if you are looking for the characteristic of craftiness that
is implied by the word disingenuous, then I'd be inclined to suggest
that it applies more to claiming that DKIM *does* use CAs than to
the claim that it does not.
Of course you would.
Not too happy about having the word disingenuous applied to the
analysis you posted?
No, just bored.
Indeed, it is never pleasant to be the recipient of such labels about one's
intent, particularly when that use is both unfounded and inaccurate.
ZZZzzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzz....
-Ekr
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html