[ietf-dkim] Tracing SSP's paradigm change

[Dave Crocker]

Arvel Hathcock wrote:
>  > Well, I reviewed the archives for the period during which i= was added
>  > and could not find discussion of it.  So I'm glad to hear you've done
>  > a more thorough review.  This means that you can point me to the
>  > archives of the working group consideration of the issue?
> 
> I wouldn't waste any more time chasing this.  Even if no such archive 
> exists, what is that but evidence that this issue is idiosyncratic or 
> has been deemed utterly unremarkable?

A lack of working group discussion is evidence of a lack of working group 
awareness and most certainly a lack of explicit working group consensus.

The use of SSP for signed messages creates a series of functional interactions 
that SSP's use on unsigned messages does not.

For a security protocol to skip analysis of interaction effects -- heck, for 
any protocol function to do this -- seems a tad unusual, particularly when it 
seeks to modify an existing critical infrastructure service.


> The notion that "DKIM-Base is for signed mail while DKIM-SSP is for 
> unsigned (only)" has never been thinking in accord with any draft of SSP 
> which I remember reading or implementing.  And it's clearly out of step 
> with where we are today.

Note that <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mailsig/mail-archive/msg02252.html> refers 
to unsigned messages and not signed messages that do not match the From field.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net