[Subject line changed with item number]
Eliot Lear wrote:
Arvel Hathcock wrote:
The SSP specification needs to be modified to remove all directions
for recipient actions, instead limiting itself to statements about the
actions of a potential signer.
This is a manifestation of the thinking that providing guidance to a
receiver about what you might like to see happen is a violation of
some Internet taboo. I just don't see a problem here.
I'd have to agree. I thought the point of SSP was for the sender to
provide the receiver on guidance on what it would like done with
messages that are believed to be inauthentic. While I understand Dave's
concern about organizations communicating policy, if this is a start, so
be it. It's very constrained.
Agree with Eliot and Arvel (disagree with issue 1520).
For those that are looking for a precedent, I'd like to point to RFC
2597 (Assured Forwarding PHB Group) as an example of where there is a
requirement on the recipient, in this case of a packet, to handle it in
a particular way. From Section 2: "Within an AF class, a DS node MUST
NOT forward an IP packet with smaller probability..." In any case, the
SSP draft is nowhere near as normative as this.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html