[ietf-dkim] mutant message validation, was Base issue: multiplelinked signatures

[Dave Crocker]

Bill.Oxley at cox.com wrote:
 > +1
 >
 > -----Original Message-----
From: Michael Thomas

Wietse Venema wrote:
 >> Perhaps some people are confusing verification and presentation.
 >>
 > I really don't understand all of this hand wringing about True Verification
 > vs. Mutant Verification Intent on Taking Over Earth. The protocol document
 > needs to be precise about what it takes for a properly written verifier to
 > verify a properly signed message. That's it. Trying to make normative any or
 > all of the ways _not_ to verify a signature is not only a waste of time, it's
 >  a hopeless task.


Mostly +1.

In line with Wietse, we need to distinguish between two, basic activities.  One 
is verification.  I would call the other "interpretation", rather than 
"presentation" because it is a function of the filtering agent -- and can result 
in a variety of handling outcomes -- rather than just presentation to the user.

The fundamental point is that dkim-base defines how to create a signature and 
how to validate a signature.  Anything done after the basic, interoperable, 
yes/no validation is outside the scope of -base.

Calling it "policy" is a good way of distinguishing it from the scope of -base 
which is intended to be purely mechanism.

d/


-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net