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

[Steve Atkins]

On Jan 24, 2008, at 8:18 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:

>
>
> 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.

+1

It's not clear what a reasonable sender should expect a reasonable  
receiver to do there, which adds to the uncertainty about the whole  
process.

Long, complex multi-step resolution algorithms do not make for  
reliable interoperability nor wide deployment. Without a very  
compelling operational benefit, that complexity should go.

(And there's nothing that says SSP couldn't be extended to signed  
messages in version 2, once a simple, base protocol is deployed and  
well understood, should there be a clear operational goal that could  
be reached by doing so).

Cheers,
   Steve