[Fwd: EKR2 - Re: [ietf-dkim] Review of draft-ietf-dkim-base-00 (1)]

[Dave Crocker]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Review of draft-ietf-dkim-base-00 (1)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:10:10 -0800
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr at rtfm.com>
Reply-To: EKR <ekr at rtfm.com>
To: dcrocker at bbiw.net
CC: DKIM IETF WG <ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org>
References: <20060319174949.52D5AB87A at delta.rtfm.com> 
<441E240F.8020601 at dcrocker.net> <86u09tqlny.fsf at delta.rtfm.com> 
<441EBDBE.9070502 at dcrocker.net>

Dave Crocker <dhc at dcrocker.net> writes:
> In any event, the fact that there is text that makes reference to
> DNSsec does not change the logic problems I cited.  By way of a
> legalistic demonstration of this fact, I'll repeat that the language
> is not normative.

Well, it certainly is so much easier to write security protocols
if you don't require them to be actually, you know, secure.


>>> In fact if you are looking for the characteristic of craftiness that
>>> is implied by the word disingenuous, then I'd be inclined to suggest
>>> that it applies more to claiming that DKIM *does* use CAs than to
>>> the claim that it does not.
>> Of course you would.
>
> Not too happy about having the word disingenuous applied to the
> analysis you posted?

No, just bored.


> Indeed, it is never pleasant to be the recipient of such labels about one's
> intent, particularly when that use is both unfounded and inaccurate.

ZZZzzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzzz....

-Ekr


-- 

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>