Subject: [ietf-dkim] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-allman-dkim-ssp-02.txt]

From: Jim Fenton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:12:10 -0700

FYI, an updated version of the Allman/Delany/Fenton SSP draft is now
available.  The changes from -01 are fairly extensive; see the summary
of changes near the end of the document.

-Jim

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.

	Title		: DKIM Sender Signing Practices
	Author(s)	: E. Allman, et al.
	Filename	: draft-allman-dkim-ssp-02.txt
	Pages		: 18
	Date		: 2006-8-31

DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) defines a domain-level
authentication framework for email using public-key cryptography and
key server technology to permit verification of the source and
contents of messages by either Mail Transport Agents (MTAs) or Mail
User Agents (MUAs).  The primary DKIM protocol is described in
This document describes the records that senders may use to advertise
how they sign their outgoing mail, and how verifiers should access
and interpret those results.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-allman-dkim-ssp-02.txt
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:29:17 -0700

TXT and HTML versions are also available at 
<http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-dkim.htm>.

d/

-- 

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

---

From: "Hector Santos" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:37:44 -0400

Are we seeking comments on this new draft now?

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 20:58:21 -0400

2.8 I'm not sure suspicious is the right adjective here, perhaps
non-conforming/conforming might be a better terminology. 
"I might be suspicious of a non-conforming signature."
Thanks,

Bill Oxley 
Messaging Engineer 
Cox Communications, Inc. 
Alpharetta GA 

[email-masked] 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 4:29 PM
To: IETF-DKIM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-allman-dkim-ssp-02.txt]

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:09:32 -0700

Interesting.  A new RR type must be used.  Are the issues related to  
a new RR type resolved?

Rather than dropping characters in the local-part section, this might  
impose a security problem when a character repertoire in the local- 
part is unknown.  DNS permits case-folding.  Even without case  
folding, the DNS code space represents about 25% of the possible code  
points.  It would be safer using base32 encoding.  This encoding  
could provide a means to concatenate up to a maximal domain name size  
and still provide about 100 byte answers.  With base32, 63 bytes can  
encode 315 bits which represent 39 bytes and 3 bits. This would  
represent a 62% increase in the label size needed.  The padding for  
the base32 could not be "=" as defined in rfc3548, but instead could  
be "8" for padding.  Use of "_user" reduces available name space by 6  
bytes.  The draft did not indicate whether truncation removed the  
left-most or right-most portion of the local-part. Consider the  
answer carefully.  How is truncation assured to occur at the same  
limit uniformly among the verifiers?

-Doug