[ietf-dkim] Review of DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)

[Arvel Hathcock]

> Somehow, we need to tell verifiers what they need to do in order to
> implement this specification.  Nobody is saying that verifiers MUST
> implement SSP at all, but rather that if they want to implement SSP,
> this is how they MUST do it.  Of course, verifiers are free to implement
> some other SSP-like thing, even one that acts on SSP records, but I feel
> we need to provide some precision in the thing we're calling SSP.

Exactly right!  Please, Jim, keep it up.

Folk on this list are confusing what the protocol states MUST be done in 
order to be implemented with what the protocol's algorithm states MUST 
be done to a message.  Any protocol has to have language with respect to 
the former.  This protocol has NO language with respect to the latter.

There is nothing that needs to be done here.

Arvel