-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 7:39 PM
To: J D Falk
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Srsly.
JD,
1. Yes, folks often forget that the premise to a standard is "IF you
embrace
this standard, THEN various normative assertions apply. IF you do
not,
then
they do not." So all the musting and shoulding are strictly in the
context of
those who have chosen to adopt the specification.
I still think there's a strong likelihood that receivers will choose to
use SSP selectively, i.e. to apply it only if their first level
reputation check on an existing signature does not meet their threshold.
In this case, the MUST is still ambiguous... they may have embraced the
standard for certain cases but not for others. The spec seems to imply,
by using MUST in certain cases, that it is an all or nothing
proposition.
2. Your second point says that there should be an 'applicability
statement'
for SSP, to clarify the scenarios in which it makes sense to use and
the
ones
it does not.
This would be a very useful addition.
Ellen
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html