[ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE 1521 -- Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages

[Dave Crocker]

Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>> 1521    Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages    new dkim
>>> Nobody    0 dhc at dcrocker.net    9 days ago        9 days ago    0
>> 
>>> Proposal: REJECT, but some wording changes may be needed for the next 
>>> rev, thread is [4] I mainly saw opposition to the change suggested in
>>> the issue, and little support, but some text clarifying changes were
>>> suggested (e.g. [5]). [4]
>>> http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008424.html [5]
>>> http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008467.html
> 
>> Would you please explain the basis for assessing that this topic got 
>> sufficient discussion and that there was rough consensus on it?
> 
> See above "I mainly saw..."


Summary of proposal:

> All text that causes SSP to be applied to an already-signed message 
> needs to be removed.


Folks,

I've reviewed the thread that took place on this topic.  Here are summary 
statistics:

    Total postings in thread:  46

    Number of different people posting:  14

    Apparent REJECT of proposal: 4

    Apparent ACCEPT of proposal: 5


I would like to ask folks with an opinion about this proposal to post an 
explicit note stating support or opposition.  Some of the existing posts were 
about substantive issues in the proposal, but did not clearly indicate support 
or opposition.

Given that this issue goes to the core of a significant fraction of the 
current specification's functionality and given that there is at least an 
implied requirement for the functionality in the SSP requirements RFC, I'll 
ask folks to do both a +1/-1 *and* to explain their reasons.

I also do not find a record in the archive of working group agreement to add 
the features in question.  So an assumption that the features should be 
retained unless there is a rough consensus *against* is problematic.  Citing 
the SSP requirements RFC is comforting, but questionable, absent any history 
of group discussion and clear rough consensus about the matter.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net