Jim Fenton wrote:
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,
1. We seem to be seeing inconsistency between whether SSP is providing
information about potential signers, versus whether it is directing the
behavior of receivers. ("providing guidance" is giving direction.)
2. RFC 2597 specifies actions relative to packets that are from the specifier
of the actions. SSP is about messages that the specifier has not issued.
3. RFC 2597 has been at Proposed Standard for 8 years. Can you point to some
deployment discussion, so that we can see how broadly it has been deployed and
how well it works?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html