[ietf-dkim] New Issue: ssp-requirements-01 // DKIM Strict definition needed.

[Michael Thomas]

Douglas Otis wrote:

>
> On Sep 21, 2006, at 11:02 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>> Douglas Otis wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 21, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's my opinion that "strict" means far too many things to far  
>>>> too  many people. Instead of rehabilitating the term, I'd far  
>>>> prefer  that we pick something else and really define what it  
>>>> means. I'm  not sure that I've achieved that and would appreciate  
>>>> help, but  reverting back to the handle that nobody seems to  agree 
>>>> on doesn't  strike me as very helpful.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> o  DKIM Strict: the state where the domain holder believes that all
>>>   legitimate mail purportedly from the domain are sent with a
>>>   valid DKIM signature and that non-compliant services are avoided.
>>>
>>> What is difficult to understand with this definition?  Is a  
>>> definition needed for non-compliant services?
>>
>>
>> How does this differ from scenario #1?
>
>
> This definition better pertains to scenario #1 than does DKIM Signer  
> Complete which fails to offer assurances that non-compliant services  
> are believed to have been avoided.  This defined state allows greater  
> clarity when attempting to differentiate between Scenario #1 and #2.   
> The term "Strict" was borrowed from Eric's draft.

So is this an issue of just wanting to inject the word "strict" 
somewhere into scenario #1?
If so, I've already said why I don't think that's helpful.

       Mike