Step 2 (Re: [ietf-dkim] The (really) latest SSP draft)

[Michael Thomas]

Here you mention that "one or more valid SSP records". In later steps (7?)
you don't subsequently say which record to choose if there is more than
one. I suppose that the first one is as good as any, but it should at 
least be
explicit.

       Mike

Jim Fenton wrote:
> The list has been uncharacteristically silent since I submitted an
> update to the SSP draft 10 days ago, so I thought I'd point out the new
> draft (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01) and a few of the highlights (more
> complete info on the changes are in section B.1).
>
> The most significant change is a new tag, called "handling", that
> represents what I called the SSP "Strong" Option in my presentation at
> IETF 69.  As I mentioned at the time, we needed a better word than
> "strong", and this is what Eric and I came up with.  It takes one of two
> values:  "process", the default, means to do what you would normally do
> with a message that is Suspicious.  "block" is a way for a domain to
> express the preference that messages violating SSP be dealt with more
> harshly, such as by deleting, bouncing, or rejecting them.
>
> Section 5, "Third-party Signatures and Mailing Lists", has been removed
> since it belongs better in the Overview document(s).  Note to overview
> authors:  hint, hint.
>
> Most of the other changes in the document, which are numerous, are to
> tighten up the wording rather than to introduce anything new or
> different.  For example, when user-granularity SSP was in the document,
> SSP applied to an "entity" which was either a user or a domain.  the
> word "domain" is sufficient, and clearer, now.
>
> Comments appreciated as always!
>
> -Jim
>
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
>