[ietf-dkim] ISSUE: New SSP Requirement - Body Truncation Limits

[Hector Santos]

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

>> Hector Santos wrote:
> 
>> I was thinking it might make sense to allow the SSP DOMAIN to 
>> define a policy attribute in its SSP record which exposes the 
>> expectation for body truncations.
> 
> I agree that this should be a capability, but I disagree 
 > with extending the policy specification.
> 
> The rules of DKIM mean that any information of this type must go 
 > into the key records. If a verifier finds a valid, trusted DKIM
 > signature the policy record would not normally be read.

Even better. My only reason for suggesting SSP was because I didn't want 
to further delay DKIM-BASE.  But Yes, definitely, I agree with you. The 
consideration should be (would be more appropriate) for the key record.

> So if the feature is to be supported the only place to put it 
 > is in the key record as a key signing constraint.

+1.


---
HLS