Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] Proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 13:44:13 -0500

The only interesting think dkim does is ensure that the message the
receiver see's actually was sent by the purported publisher of that
internet bitstream. Who has seen it before offers nothing of interest.
thanks

Bill Oxley 
Messaging Engineer 
Cox Communications, Inc. 
Alpharetta GA 
404-847-6397 
[email-masked] 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 1:32 PM
To: Barry Leiba
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal for specifying syntax and semantics
formultiple signatures

Barry Leiba wrote:
> Well, the issue is that if, say with the above example, signer #3
signs 
> the other three signature headers, and then the next hop re-orders
them, 
> the verifier can still figure out which records signed which others.

So what?

There are many "interesting" things that we might build into a protocol.

The question is what compelling need is served by the feature?

Each feature makes the protocol more complex and therefore raises the
adoption 
barrier.

So we should feel obligated to explain why a feature offers long-term,
strategic 
benefits.

d/
-- 

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html