[ietf-dkim] Conflicts between -ssp-requirements and -ssp

[Hector Santos]

Michael Thomas wrote:

> It doesn't permit 3rd party signatures for _SSP_ itself. That doesn't 
> say anything about third party signatures in general which receivers 
 > are perfectly at liberty to use or not use as they see fit. I'm pretty
 > sure we've been through this ad nauseum about third party signatures 
with
 > SSP and that the consensus was that we didn't want to go there.

No. There was no consensus. Major difference.

 > Look at the archives about whether we needed  enumerated lists
> of 3rd party signers for example -- that was rejected.

No, for all intent and purposes, it was never given a chance because a) 
this key cogs never understood it, b) was confused by other REPUTATION 
designs ambitions and c) due to some wasted requirements document molded 
by a person who never believed in strict 3PS designs in the first place.

No one should be surprise that the same critical issues highlighted 
nearly 3+ years ago is the same issue today.  It can't be ignore and I 
have serious doubt DKIM will be seriously adopted in mass because 3PS 
was neglected and never adequately and seriously accepted for 
consideration by its cogs.  Unfortunately, the decision was made to 
IGNORE those who have good and excellent input. So no, there was never 
never any serious consideration, thus any valid consensus one way or 
another.

-- 
Sincerely

Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com