On Jan 24, 2008, at 8:18 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Stephen Farrell wrote:
1521 Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages new
dkim
Nobody 0 dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net 9 days ago 9 days ago 0
Proposal: REJECT, but some wording changes may be needed for the
next rev, thread is [4] I mainly saw opposition to the change
suggested in
the issue, and little support, but some text clarifying changes
were
suggested (e.g. [5]). [4]
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008424.html [5]
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008467.html
Would you please explain the basis for assessing that this topic
got sufficient discussion and that there was rough consensus on it?
See above "I mainly saw..."
Summary of proposal:
All text that causes SSP to be applied to an already-signed message
needs to be removed.
+1
It's not clear what a reasonable sender should expect a reasonable
receiver to do there, which adds to the uncertainty about the whole
process.
Long, complex multi-step resolution algorithms do not make for
reliable interoperability nor wide deployment. Without a very
compelling operational benefit, that complexity should go.
(And there's nothing that says SSP couldn't be extended to signed
messages in version 2, once a simple, base protocol is deployed and
well understood, should there be a clear operational goal that could
be reached by doing so).
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html