[ietf-dkim] Draft summary of SSP functionality

[Steve Atkins]

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[1] 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.

Cheers,
   Steve

[1] Excluding meaningless or ill-defined terms such as "Suspicious"