Subject: [ietf-dkim] ssp-requirements-01 // DKIM Strict definition needed.

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:56:27 -0700

2.  Definitions

Add:

o  DKIM Strict: the state where the domain holder believes that all
    legitimate mail purportedly from the domain are sent with a
    valid DKIM signature and that non-compliant services are avoided.

4.1.  Scenario 1: Bigbank.example.com
...
Was:
,---
|Note that for the foreseeable future, DKIM signature breakage for
|unrestricted use patterns (ie with users and especially where users
|are members of mailing lists) will likely suffer occasional damage in
|transit.  While probably not a large percentage of total traffic, the
|kind (quality) of breakage may be significant for certain usage
|patterns.  As such, this scenario defines a more limited situation
|where the risk of a legitimate piece of mail being mislabeled as
|unsigned outweights the risk of illegitimate mail being delivered in
|the eyes of the sender.
'___

Change to:

:Note that for the foreseeable future, DKIM signature breakage for
:unrestricted use patterns (ie with users and especially where users
:are members of mailing lists) will likely suffer occasional damage in
:transit.  While probably not a large percentage of total traffic, the
:kind (quality) of breakage may be significant for certain usage
:patterns.  As such, this scenario defines a more limited situation
:where the risk of a legitimate piece of mail being mislabeled as
:unsigned outweights the risk of illegitimate mail being delivered in
:the eyes of the sender.  [Rather than indicating a DKIM Signer
:Complete state, DKIM Strict would be used instead.]

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

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:45:37 +0100

Doug,

Did you read the mail where I said that Eliot won't track
things that aren't obviously new issues? Please do try to
make his and our lives somewhat easier by complying with that
request - it is not reasonable to expect him to parse
a thread to extract an issue description from the 7th message
or whatever that was.

Or you can continue as you're doing and once again have
people pay less attention to your points than they otherwise
might.

Your choice,
Stephen.