ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality

2007-12-05 12:02:41

On Dec 5, 2007, at 10:46 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:

Probably worth distinguishing between the specific assertions that the draft current supports, versus the scope of additional assertions that could be added to the repertoire.

I don't think the latter - potential extensions - need be mentioned at all, as any extensions will be either private use only or will require additional standards work.

But there are, I think, twelve assertions that the current SSP draft can make. Listing which of those assertions are valid, and what message they are intended to communicate to the receiver, and what action the receiver might be expected to take on receiving them would be useful plain english[1] to create. If the meanings of those assertions change in different query scenarios (valid dkim signature vs no valid dkim signature, say) then those need to be enumerated too.

That's a useful thing to do in any case, to clarify what everyone believes the current draft means, but once it's done I suspect it can be converted to the short summary needed for this document.

Cheers,
  Steve

[1] Excluding meaningless or ill-defined terms such as "Suspicious"

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html