[ietf-dkim] Nits with section 4 Detailed Description

[Hector Santos]

Jim Fenton wrote:
> 
> Solely?  SSP is the sole determiner of Suspicious (which I should have
> capitalized), so I'm not sure what you're getting at.  How about: 
> "...the Verifier SHOULD NOT consider the message Suspicious."

Small comment.

I was preferred the approach for outlining WHAT is expected in the 
protocol design and when there is a deviation from the expectation, then 
the insights about what is or is not viewed as suspicious should be 
worked out.

Case in point,  t=y (testing mode).

Do you really believe that verifiers are going to tolerate a "MUST NOT" 
be view as suspicious for a domain that is perpetually in testing?

What is the expectation behind the testing?

Should it be limited?  How long should one continue to process a t=y 
site?  What is is always a failure?

Another is the MX issue.

What if the SMTP system already has a MX concept BEFORE that data stage 
or the mail is accepted?   How are the results to this apply to any DKIM 
fascimile in the message?  Should a pre-emptive MX lookup result be pass 
to the headers to help verifiers skip the DKIM processing if a NXDOMIN 
is found?

I don't think enough is place in the SSP/DKIM specs about tolerance for 
failure where things continuely to go wrong but the specs recommend no 
action.


-- 
Sincerely

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