Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>
> Jim Fenton wrote:
>> For those that are looking for a precedent, I'd like to point to RFC
>> 2597 (Assured Forwarding PHB Group) as an example of where there is a
>> requirement on the recipient, in this case of a packet, to handle it in
>> a particular way. From Section 2: "Within an AF class, a DS node MUST
>> NOT forward an IP packet with smaller probability..." In any case, the
>> SSP draft is nowhere near as normative as this.
>
>
> Jim,
>
> 1. We seem to be seeing inconsistency between whether SSP is
> providing information about potential signers, versus whether it is
> directing the behavior of receivers. ("providing guidance" is giving
> direction.)
SSP is clearly providing information about the use of DKIM by domains.
It is also allowing those domains to express their preference about the
handling of mail that purports to come from them. The intent in this
latter regard is that domains are encouraged to do as requested by the
alleged originating domain, but that they are compliant with the
specification even if they choose not to do so.
>
> 2. RFC 2597 specifies actions relative to packets that are from the
> specifier of the actions. SSP is about messages that the specifier
> has not issued.
True, but I consider that just a characteristic of the different use
cases between SSP and Diffserv.
>
>
> 3. RFC 2597 has been at Proposed Standard for 8 years. Can you point
> to some deployment discussion, so that we can see how broadly it has
> been deployed and how well it works?
The point is that RFC 2597 is an IETF standards-track document, and an
example of a protocol which seeks to direct the behavior of receivers
(to use your terminology). It does this with considerably more forceful
language than the SSP draft currently uses.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
