[ietf-dkim] Conflicts between -ssp-requirements and -ssp
hsantos at santronics.com
Sun Sep 30 17:11:28 PDT 2007
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
> 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
Hector Santos, CTO
More information about the ietf-dkim