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

[Eliot Lear]

Douglas Otis wrote:
> This draft goes to the opposite extreme of the ASP draft and increases 
> the restrictions for "all" compliance as well. This draft indicates 
> _ALL_ messages are to include a signature with an i= parameter matches 
> that of an identity within the From header.  This is not the defined 
> use for RFC 4871.
>
> The ASP approach creates fewer corner cases.  At least with the ASP 
> draft, any risk of misuse remains within the control of a domain to 
> rectify.
>
> IMHO, unless the SSP draft is changed to comply with RFC 4871, the WG 
> should consider adopting the ASP draft instead.

Please indicate the paragraph in RFC 4871 that this draft would conflict 
with.

Thanks,

Eliot