Subject: RE: Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:26:44 -0800

If the message has any valid, acceptable sig you accept and the policy record is never read.

So no, there is no extra lookup.

Sent from my GoodLink Wireless Handheld (www.good.com)

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Jim Fenton [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Tuesday, February 27, 2007 04:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
To:	Paul Hoffman
Cc:	[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject:	Additional lookups (was Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: 1368 straw-poll)

Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 8:48 AM -0800 2/26/07, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> The proposed mechanism incurs an additional lookup for every signed 
>> message.
>
> You keep saying this without justifying it. Others have shown it to be 
> wrong. Please stop repeating it or support your statement.
Absent this mechanism, a message which has at least one valid signature 
on behalf of the From address [assuming some other decisions that are 
pending] does not need to consult SSP.

With a mechanism in SSP to specify the signature algorithms that should 
be present, it is always necessary to consult SSP to find out the list 
of required signature algorithms.  This, I believe, is the additional 
lookup for every signed message to which Dave refers.

Mark Delany mentioned that this information could be included in the 
selector records (presumably via an extension, since this isn't in 
-base).  This would remove the need to consult SSP on signed messages, 
but then it's not clear that it's an SSP mechanism any more.

-Jim
_______________________________________________
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