[ietf-dkim] Pete's review of 4871bis

[Dave CROCKER]

On 6/29/2011 11:49 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> Now*that's*  the attack. But it's NOT AN ATTACK ON DKIM! It's an attack


So?

The original directive to produce a threats analaysis was for threats to 
recipients that DKIM might help remedy.

Clearly, techniques later designed to circumvent or exploit DKIM weaknessare 
also relevant, but they aren't the only attacks that are relevant here.  Also, 
I'm just guessing that that's what you mean by "attack on DKIM".

If I missed it, I apologize, but have you define what you mean by "attack on 
DKIM"?  And why is it important to distinguish which category an attack falls into?

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net