[ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality
steve at blighty.com
Wed Dec 5 10:59:28 PST 2007
On Dec 5, 2007, at 10:46 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Probably worth distinguishing between the specific assertions that
> the draft current supports, versus the scope of additional
> assertions that could be added to the repertoire.
I don't think the latter - potential extensions - need be mentioned
at all, as any extensions will be either private use only or will
require additional standards work.
But there are, I think, twelve assertions that the current SSP draft
can make. Listing which of those assertions are valid, and what
message they are intended to communicate to the receiver, and what
action the receiver might be expected to take on receiving them would
be useful plain english to create. If the meanings of those
assertions change in different query scenarios (valid dkim signature
vs no valid dkim signature, say) then those need to be enumerated too.
That's a useful thing to do in any case, to clarify what everyone
believes the current draft means, but once it's done I suspect it can
be converted to the short summary needed for this document.
 Excluding meaningless or ill-defined terms such as "Suspicious"
More information about the ietf-dkim