ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Corrected copy - Requirements addition: Policy/Practice record for first party signatures

2006-08-09 13:59:39
Scott ---

Scott -- I think it's both explicit and specific in other requirements that the protocol must publish that data, and some of those are MUST strength. I really don't see why
we need to restate that here.

That and I don't think there is any explicit or implicit proscription here on when the protocol ought not be invoked. The restriction on was forcing new behavior for a
DKIM verifier, not on how the protocol could be used.

      Mike

Scott Kitterman wrote:

*** 574,580 ****
            blacklist repository.]

    9.   The Protocol MUST NOT be required to be invoked if a valid first
!         party signatures is found.

    10.  [PROVISIONAL] A domain holder MUST be able to publish a Practice
         which enumerates the acceptable cryptographic algorithms for
--- 581,594 ----
            blacklist repository.]

    9.   The Protocol MUST NOT be required to be invoked if a valid first
!         party signatures is found, [PROVISIIONAL] but the Protocol SHOULD
!         support publishing Practices for First Party DKIM signatures.
!
!            [INFORMATIVE NOTE: the provisional requirement to support First
!            Party Practices is intended as an aid to the receiver.  While
!            SSP lookups aren't required for First Party DKIM signatures,
!            there may be utility to receivers to determine Practices
!            associated with First Party DKIM signatures.]

    10.  [PROVISIONAL] A domain holder MUST be able to publish a Practice
         which enumerates the acceptable cryptographic algorithms for
***************

This addition is suggested for a couple of reasons...

1. Completeness. I think there is some value in providing a reasonably complete list of Practices. There will likely be effective uses for policy information by receivers that we haven't thought of yet. An incomplete set of practices may hamstring this kind of innovation.

2. RFC 2821 discovery - This is the requirement change a alluded to yesterday in the signalling DKIM support before DATA thread. I won't rehash that here.

Scott K
_______________________________________________
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>