Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM+ADSP = FAIL, and it's our fault

On 15/09/10 15:43, McDowell, Brett wrote:
> On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:11 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> > Based on that (rather precise) description, aren't ADSP's requirements a 
> > proper subset of the DKIM requirements?  If so, I'm not sure I agree with 
> > "badly conflicting", but it does frame future discussion quite nicely.
> >
> > For example, if DKIM enables the identification of mail streams, isn't the 
> > one ADSP covers just a specific instance of a mail stream?
> BTW, one thing I think we can agree on and find value from in these 
> pre-deployment email discussions is terminology.  I ran into a problem at the 
> last MAAWG during a panel discussion where my understanding of "3rd-party 
> signature" is what someone else meant by "2nd-party signature".  What is the 
> real definitions of "1st-party", "2nd-party" and "3rd-party" signatures in 
> the context of DKIM and ADSP, i.e. in the context of i= and d= and from: 
> values?
How does that relate to the current WG work items?

If it does, please start a specific thread the editor
can make sense of.

If it doesn't, do you think its really a good idea to
ask folks to get involved in a discussion of definitions
now?

Also, how does it relate to the subject line?

Please don't respond to this on the list unless you have to.

S.


> > ________________________________________
> > From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org 
> > [ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Steve Atkins 
> > [steve(_at_)wordtothewise(_dot_)com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 3:01 PM
> > To: DKIM List
> > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM+ADSP = FAIL, and it's our fault
> >
> > The problem is that the two things have badly conflicting requirements. DKIM 
> > is based on a domain-based identifier that's independent of the From: 
> > domain, and that's where much of it's value comes from. ADSP is based on a 
> > domain-based identifier that must remain identical to the From: field at all 
> > times, and that's where it's sole value comes from. ADSP intrinsically 
> > conflicts with the original design case for DKIM, despite being piggy-backed 
> > on to it.
> >
> > So any document that puts forth even basic good practices for DKIM usage for 
> > monitoring sender reputation (use d= to differentiate mail streams) is going 
> > to be anathema to ADSP requirements (d= must be the same as the From: 
> > domain).
> >
> > And any ADSP-driven set of requirements (mailing lists should not only 
> > re-sign any mail they re-send, they should alter the From: address to match) 
> > is going to be considered nonsensical by people who consider DKIM a way to 
> > tie an identity cookie to a message.
> >
> > And, as we've seen, any compromise document is hated by pretty much 
> > everyone, even assuming you can get there.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >  Steve
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
> > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html