[ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-02.txt

[Hector Santos]

Douglas Otis wrote:
> 
> On Feb 1, 2008, at 3:18 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
> 
>>> IMHO, unless the SSP draft is changed to comply with RFC 4871, the WG 
>>> should consider adopting the ASP draft instead.
>>
>> First, I don't agree that SSP did not comply with RFC 4871.
> 
> No. RFC 4871 does not comply with SSP.

How so?

 From my standpoint, ASP/SSP-02 both provided unprotected considerations 
in DKIM-BASE.

ASP::DISCARDABLE completely changes the semantics of DKIM-BASE failures 
state change to "no signature" to one where a failed signature exist.

Likewise ASP::ALL offers no protection against fraudulent 3rd party 
signers.  This is not what I call adding a SECURITY WRAPPER around the 
DKIM-BASE signing expectations whether forged 1st or 3rd party.

--
HLS