Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Resigner Support of RFC 5617 (ADSP)

From: Franck Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:45:21 +1200 (FJT)

----- "Scott Kitterman" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 
> Except that the ADSP RFC is already published and so it is what it is.
>  It is definitely 
> premature to crack ADSP open again (of course I thought that about
> DKIM too).
> 
But as ADSP states, that the problem of 3rd party signing is not covered, and it seems the issue of mailing lists, then an addendum can be done.

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

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 21:56:09 -0400

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:45:21 +1200 (FJT) Franck Martin <[email-masked]> 
wrote:
>But as ADSP states, that the problem of 3rd party signing is not covered, 
and it seems the issue of mailing lists, then an addendum can be done.
The rough consensus of the group resulted in the ADSP we have now.  These 
issues were discussed before and until there's some reason to believe the 
rough consensus has shifted, I think it's not the best use of my time.

Scott K

---

From: hector <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 00:07:19 -0400

> and it seems the issue of mailing lists, then an addendum can

Keep in mind that it doesn't matter if RFC 5617 is updated or extended 
to include 3rd party signer if it doesn't include a mandate for 
resigners MUST honor and support policy.

Thats the key fundamental issue here because it alters the strategic 
business DKIM models that do not include POLICY its its framework.

It comes down to two principles:

   1) Unrestricted Resigners, or
   2) Resigner controls based on Original Domains policies.

To their credit, Crocker and Levine wanted #1  Pro-policy people 
wanted #2.  To appease the pro-policy people, Levine took control of 
SSP and released ADSP with the attempt to make it a separate concept 
outside #1 business models. #1 models simply need to ignore the RFC 
5617 protocol.

What they didn't realized is that receivers could support it, maybe in 
a marketing attempt to publicize a

          "Total DKIM solution with ADSP support"

and these become problems for resigners.

So even if we as a WG decide to add a 3rd party signing policy, the 
issue remains on whether the resigner is obligated in supporting ADSP 
v1.0 and and ADSP v2.0 with 3rd party features.

--