Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP - Suggestion to Remove this.

From: Arvel Hathcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:55:00 -0500

I can't comprehend the relevance of your words since we're not dealing on the level of "local-part" in this WG - only on the level of "domain".  Isn't this true?

-- 
Arvel 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Otis [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 1:51 PM
To: Arvel Hathcock
Cc: [email-masked]'
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP - Suggestion to Remove this.

On Sep 26, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Arvel Hathcock wrote:

>> 10.  The Protocol MUST NOT be required to be invoked if a valid  
>> first party signature is found.
>
> Hector, doesn’t it say exactly what you want it to say?  It says  
> that the protocol must not require invocation when valid first  
> party signatures are found.  It doesn't say "THOU SHALT NOT INVOKE  
> THE PROTOCOL".  I see nothing that needs to be changed.

There might be policies associated with the local-part of the  
referencing email-address domain.  Depending upon how this policy is  
being used, it may be required by some protocol to obtain this policy  
record.  Assume this would only happen when the email-address domain  
is considered trustworthy, and that there might be conditional  
constraints that might be applied, such as those that may pertain to  
the local-part.

Not everyone within any domain should be assumed trustworthy.  When  
attempting to define a protocol for indicating an additional level of  
trust, there might be a need to further constrain the assertion.   
That additional constraint would be required even when the signing  
domain matches the email-address domain.

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

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 15:29:56 -0700

On Sep 26, 2006, at 2:55 PM, Arvel Hathcock wrote:

> I can't comprehend the relevance of your words since we're not  
> dealing on the level of "local-part" in this WG - only on the level  
> of "domain".  Isn't this true?

This prior and current version of SSP by Eric both include local-part  
policy components.  As these components are essential when attempting  
to constrain various annotations, it seems only logical to consider  
how this element is best incorporated.  To ignore the local-part seem  
like designing a house where the doors are all too small to  
accommodate furniture.

-Doug